Full text of "Luke the historian in the light of research"

See other formats

LUKE THE HISTORIAN
IN THE LIGHT OF RESEARCH

A. T. ROBERTSON, M.A., D.D., LL.D., LITT.D.

PBOFESSOB OF NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, SOOTHEBH BAPTIST
THEOLOGICAL BEMWABY, LOUISVILLE, KY.

Having traced the course of all things
accurately from the first."

EDINBURGH

T. & T. CLARK

1920

Printed by the Scribner Press
New York, U. S. A,

THE MEMORY OP

DR. AND MRS. J. B. MARVIN

DISTINGUISHED LIKE LUKE

IN SERVICE FOR THE BODIES AND

SOULS OF MEN

PREFACE

The work of the last fifteen years has created new interest
in the writings of Luke. The relation of Luke s Gospel to
Mark s Gospel and the Logia of Jesus has sharply defined his
own critical methods and processes. The researches of Har-
nack, Hobart, and Ramsay have restored the credit of Luke
with many critics who had been carried away by the criticism
of Baur, and who looked askance upon the value of Luke as
the historian of early Christianity. It has been like mining
digging now here, now there. The items in Luke s books that
were attacked have been taken up one by one. The work has
been slow and piecemeal, of necessity. But it is now possible
to gather together into a fairly complete picture the results.
It is a positively amazing vindication of Luke. The force of
the argument is cumulative and tremendous. One needs to
have the patience to work through the details with candor and
a willingness to see all the facts with no prejudice against Luke
or against the supernatural origin of Christianity. It is not
claimed that every difficulty in Luke s books has been solved,
but so many have been triumphantly removed that Luke is
entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the rest or at any rate to
patience on our part till further research can make a report.
Luke should at least be treated as fairly as Thucydides or
Polybius when he makes a statement that as yet has no other
support or seems in conflict with other writers. Modern
scholars are no longer on the defensive about Luke. His
books can be used with confidence. The work of research has
thrown light in every direction and the story is fascinating to
every lover of truth.

These lectures, delivered to the Northfield Christian Workers
Conference, August 2-16, 1919, at the invitation of Mr. W.

vii

vili PREFACE

R. Moody, have been greatly enlarged for publication. But
the toil has been brightened by the memory of the crowds in
Sage Chapel who first heard them.

"The long series of discoveries by Sir W. M. Ramsay and
his coadjutors in Asia Minor has established the Acts narra
tive in a position from which later research is unlikely to de
throne it." (London Times Literary Supplement, March 13,
1920.) But the work of research goes on with vigor. New
books continue to come out concerning Luke s writings, like
Carpenter s Christianity According to S. Luke and McLach-
lan s St. Luke : The Man and His Work. Both of them I found
useful and stimulating. Vol. I of The Beginnings of Christianity,
by Foakes-Jackson and, Kirsopp Lake, came too late to use.
It is an ambitious attempt to set forth the historical atmos
phere of the Acts, and assumes the thesis that Jesus preached
only repentance with no world programme such as later Chris
tianity provided. Lieutenant MacKinlay also has in press a
new book on Luke.

I have to thank Rev. J. McKee Adams, Louisville, Kentucky,
who put the manuscript in typewritten form and for other
tokens of interest in the work. The splendid Indices were pre
pared by Rev. J. Allan Easley, Jr., Manning, South Carolina,
whose careful work will make the volume more useful to stu
dents. A few of the chapters have appeared as articles in jour
nals, whose publishers have graciously agreed to their use in
this volume.

A. T. ROBERTSON.

LOUISVILLE, Ky.,
August, 1920.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

PAGE

I. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS .

II. A SKETCH OF LUKE S CAREER ........ 16

III. THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS ... 30

IV. LUKE S METHOD OF RESEARCH 42

V. THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 61

VI. THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 76

VII. THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE .... 90

VIII. A PHYSICIAN S ACCOUNT OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS . 103

IX. THE ROMANCE OF THE CENSUS IN LUKE S GOSPEL . 118

X. A PHYSICIAN S REPORT OF THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 130

XI. A LITERARY MAN S RECORD OF THE PARABLES OF

JESUS 142

XII. AN HISTORIAN S IDEA OF THE DEITY OF JESUS . . 153

XIII. POINTS OF CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS . 166

XIV. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL DATA IN THE

ACTS 179

XV. LUKE S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 190

XVI. NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 .206

XVII. THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS. ... . . &lt;. * . . 217

XVIII. A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE . .,-..-. . . . 231

INDEX 243

LUKE THE HISTORIAN IN THE
LIGHT OF RESEARCH

CHAPTER I

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS
"The former treatise I made, O Theophilus" (Acts 1 : 1)

1. The Importance of the Lukan Writings. Modern research
has revived interest in the Gospel according to Luke and the
Acts of the Apostles. In part this fact is due to the natural
reaction against the extreme view of Baur, who bluntly said
that the statements in Acts "can only be looked upon as
intentional deviations from historic truth in the interest of the
special tendency which they possess." l It is true that Luke in
Acts is not a blind Paulinist, as Moffatt 2 shows. Both Peter
and Paul are heroes with Luke, but the weaknesses and short
comings of both apostles appear. Undoubtedly Luke reveals
his sympathies with Paul, but he is not hostile to Peter and is
quite capable 3 of doing justice to both Peter and Paul. The
work of Baur has not discredited Luke in the final result as a
writer who sought to cover up the friction between Peter and
Paul and between Barnabas and Paul. The struggles in early
Christianity stand out with sufficient clearness in the Acts, and
it is now seen to be quite possible that Luke has drawn the
narrative with a true perspective. Schweitzer 4 argues that the
account in Acts is more intelligible than that in the Pauline
Epistles: "When the Tubingen school set up the axiom that
Acts is less trustworthy than the Epistles, they made things
easy for themselves" easy, one may add, by slurring over
plain facts in the Acts.

1 Baur, Paid, vol. I, p. 108,

2 Intr. to the Literature of the N. T., p. 302.

3 Ibid., p, 302. 4 Paul and His Interpreters, p. 126.

2 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

But Baur compelled diligent study of the Acts. The critics,
like the Beroeans after Paul preached, went to " examining the
scriptures daily, whether these things were so" (Acts 17 : 11).
As a result of a half-century of such research Maurice Jones 1
can say: "There is no book in the whole of the New Testament
whose position in the critical world has been so enhanced by
recent research as the Acts of the Apostles." It cannot, how
ever, be claimed that modern critics are at one either in cred
iting the Gospel and the Acts to Luke or in attaching a higher
value to the so-called Lukan writings. The long prejudice
against these books has not entirely disappeared. Pfleiderer 2
can still claim that "the Gospel of Luke was probably written
at the beginning of the second century by an unknown heathen
Christian," though he admits that Luke, "the pupil of Paul,"
wrote the memoirs of his journey with Paul (the "we" sections
of Acts). Jiilicher 3 considers it "a romantic ideal" to attribute
these books to Luke. And Weizsacker 1 as late as 1902 says:
"The historical value of the narrative in Acts shrinks until it
reaches a vanishing-point." But these are modern protests
against the new evidence that were to be expected. The judg
ment of Maurice Jones about the new estimate placed upon
the Acts and upon Luke s Gospel remains true.

Much of the credit for this outcome is due to Sir W. M.
Ramsay, who was himself at first a disciple of Baur. It was
patient research that proved that Baur was wrong and that
enabled Ramsay to reconstruct the world of Luke and Paul
in the light of their own writings and the archseological dis
coveries made by Ramsay and others in Asia Minor. The
results of this revolution in Ramsay s literary outlook appear
in his various volumes, like The Historical Geography of Asia
Minor, The Church in tJie Roman Empire, St. Paul the Traveller
and Roman Citizen, Luke the Physician, Pauline and Other
Studies, The Cities of St. Paul, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?
The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the
New Testament.

It is not too much to say that these volumes mark an epoch

1 The New Testament in the Twentieth Century, p. 227.

2 Christian Origins, p. 238.

3 Introduction to the N. T., pp. 447 f.

4 Apostolic Age, pp. 106 f . With this Von Soden agrees, History of Early
Christian Lit., p. 243.

THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 3

in the study of the writings of Luke and Paul. Ramsay is
conscious that he began with a strong current of adverse criti
cism against him. He boldly asks 1 the critics: "Shall we
hear evidence or not?" Ramsay 2 sharply says: "Criticism
for a time examined the work attributed to Luke like a corpse,
and the laborious autopsy was fruitless. Nothing in the whole
history of literary criticism has been so waste and dreary as
great part of the modern critical study of Luke." This charge
is true, but Ramsay 3 is able to say: "It has for some time been
evident to all New Testament scholars who were not hidebound
in old prejudice that there must be a new departure in Lukan
criticism. The method of dissection had failed." Ramsay
took the new path that has led out of the wilderness.

Others were at work along different lines. Hawkins 4 had
done real service on the synoptic problem and had brought
into sharp relief the place of Luke s Gospel in relation to Mark
and Matthew. Hobart 5 had shown that the author of both
Gospel and Acts employed medical terms to a surprising de
gree. The evidence pointed to Luke and reinforced the work
of Ramsay.

In time Adolph Harnack was led to notice the work of these
men. He was convinced that they were right and he reversed
his position and took up the cudgels for the Lukan authorship
of both Gospel and Acts. He says: 6 "All the mistakes which
have been made in New Testament criticism have been focussed
into the criticism of the Acts of the Apostles." That is a dar
ing statement from the new convert who ridicules "the intol
erable pedantry" of the critics who cannot see the facts for
their theories. Harnack is aware of the supercilious scorn of
many who have refused to notice the arguments in favor of
Luke. He sees also the great importance 7 of Luke s writings:
"The genuine epistles of St. Paul, the writings of St. Luke,
and the history of Eusebius are the pillars of primitive Chris
tian history. This fact has not yet been sufficiently recognized
in the case of the Lukan writings; partly because critics are
convinced that these writings are not to be assigned to St.

1 Pauline and Other Studies, chap. I.

2 Luke the Physician, p. 3.

3 Ibid. 4 Horce Synopticce.

5 The Medical Language of St. Luke,

6 Luke the Physician, p. 122. 7 Luke the Physician, p. 1.

4 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Luke. And yet, even if they were right in their suppositions,
the importance of the Acts of the Apostles at least still remains
fundamental. However, I hope to have shown in the follow
ing pages that critics have gone astray in this question, and
that the traditional view holds good. The Lukan writings
thus recover their own excelling value as historical authorities."
Harnack, as we shall see, does not rank Luke as high as Ram
say does, but he has definitely championed the Lukan author
ship of both the Gospel and Acts. Renan felt the charm of
Luke s Gospel as a literary production when he pronounced it
" the most beautiful book ever written."

The historical worth of the Gospel and Acts comes up for
formal discussion in succeeding chapters. Sanday thinks that
Ramsay s "treatment of St. Luke as a historian seems too opti
mistic" when he ranks him as the foremost ancient historian,
even above Thucydides. But, whatever view one holds of the
Lukan writings, no serious student of the New Testament can
neglect them. The author writes two books that interpret the
origins of Christianity. How far has he been successful in this
effort ? He claims that he took pains to do it with care. Crit
icism has challenged his claims. One cannot complain of
criticism per se. Carpenter 1 well says: "Let us by all means
have historical criticism, but let it be genuinely historical." It
is not best to prejudge the case before we examine the evidence,
and Chase 2 sums the matter up thus: "But it may be safely
said that the certain results of archaeological research strongly
confirm the accuracy and truthfulness of the author of the
Acts." Let the facts speak for themselves.

2. The Same Author for Both Gospel and Acts. The author of
the Gospel and the Acts makes the distinct claim of identity
in Acts 1:1:" The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, con
cerning all that Jesus began both to do and teach." Theophi
lus is clearly a proper name, "not an imaginary nom de guerre
for the typical catechumen, nor a conventional title for the
average Christian reader." 3 He was a Christian who had
already been catechized 4 (Luke 1 : 4) and who wished further
instruction. It is probable that Theophilus was a man of rank

1 Christianity According to S. Luke, p. ix.

2 The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 8.

3 Moffatt, Introduction, p. 262.

4 MI_ of. Apollos in Acts 18 : 25.

THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 5

because of the epithet "most excellent" 1 (Luke 1:3), which is
"technical and distinctive" 2 for the equestrian rank (cf. Acts
24 : 3; 26 : 25). Ramsay doubts if a Roman officer in the first
century would be willing to bear the name Theophilus, and
suggests that it was his baptismal name which Luke employs
because "it was dangerous for a Roman of rank to be recog
nized as a Christian." Be that as it may, identity of author
ship is claimed by the address to Theophilus. It is hardly
likely that there were two authors who used his name to prove
identity. It has been suggested that Luke was a freedman
brought up in the home of Theophilus, who was his patron,
and who defrayed the expense of the publication of both of
Luke s books. 3 Hayes 4 conjectures that Theophilus, who lived
in Antioch, educated Luke at the university, and that he was
also a schoolmate of Barnabas and Saul there.

We are not here arguing that the Acts shows unity of author
ship. That point must be assumed for the present. The
proof will be given later that the writer of the "we" sections
is the author of the whole of Acts, though he used a variety of
sources, as he did in the writing of the Gospel (Luke 1 : 1-4).
The point that is now urged is that whoever wrote one book
wrote the other. The same man wrote both Gospel and Acts.
It is not necessary to argue that the author contemplated a
third volume because of his use of "first" 5 in Acts 1:1. That
nicety in the use of language was not common in the Koine 6
where the dual form had nearly vanished. To-day we speak
of first wife when a man had only two, and we talk of the
first story of a two-story house. This item plays no real part
in the argument one way or the other.

1 xp&rura. 2 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 388.

3 One thinks of Maecenas and Horace. "This was the recognized prac
tice of the time." Moffatt, Introduction, p. 313.

4 The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts, p. 197.

5 rbv xpw-rov X6yov. Cf . Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testa
ment in the Light of Historical Research, p. 280. Luke never employs
jcp6Tepo&lt;;. The papyri nearly always use xp6&gt;To&lt;;.

8 The Koine is the name given to the Greek current throughout the
Greco-Roman world after the conquests of Alexander the Great. It was
the language common to all classes and nations and it was the means of
communication practically everywhere. It was employed in the vernacu
lar, as is seen in the papyri of Egypt, and literary men like Polybius and
Plutarch wrote in it also. The New Testament writers used the Koine
as a matter of course.

6 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

In spite of the variety of sources employed in both the Gos
pel and the Acts, there is the same general vocabulary and
style in both books. This argument has been well developed
by Friedrich. 1 It ought not to be necessary to argue this
point, since "the linguistic and other peculiarities which dis
tinguish the Gospel are equally prominent in the Acts." 2 The
words peculiar to Luke in both Gospel and Acts are more
numerous than those peculiar to any other New Testament
writer, except Paul (counting the Pastoral Epistles). 3 The
argument of Hobart in his Medical Language of St. Luke applies
to both the Gospel and the Acts, as we shall see, and is proof
of identity of authorship. There is little opposition among
critics to the Lukan authorship of the Gospel. " If the Gospel
were the only writing ascribed to his authorship, we should
probably raise no objection against this record of ancient tra
dition; for we have no sufficient reason for asserting that a dis
ciple of Paul could not have composed this work." 4 It is with
the Acts that critics have trouble. De Wette doubted the
Lukan authorship of the Gospel, and Scholten argued that the
same man could not have written both Gospel and Acts.
Harnack 5 grows facetious over this argument: "Seeing how one
critic trustfully rests upon the authority of another, we may
congratulate ourselves that some accident has prevented
Scholten s hypothesis that the third gospel and the Acts have
different authors from finding its way into the great stream
of criticism and so becoming a dogma in these days." The
line of attack has not been to show that Luke s Gospel and
Acts are unlike, but that the Acts was not written by a com
panion of Paul. To the Acts, then, let us go. Who wrote the
Acts?

3. The Author of Acts a Companion of Paul. Here is where
the real battle has raged. Very few critics have the hardihood

1 Das Lukas Evangelium und die Apostdgeschichte Werlx, dessdben Ver-
fasser (1890).

2 Supernatural Religion, vol. Ill, p. 32. This concession is noteworthy.
8 Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke, p. 3. Cf . also Vogel,

Zur Characteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil, p. 11.

4 J. Weiss, Die Schriften des N. T.; das Lukas-Evangelium, 1906, p. 378.
So, then, J. Weiss argues still that "the Lukan writings as a whole are the
work of a man of the postapostolic generation." But Loofs regards Luke
as the author of the Acts (What Is the Truth about Jesus Christ f, p. 91).

5 l/uke the Physician^ pp. 7, 21, n. 2.

THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 7

to say that Luke did not write any part of the Acts. Schmiedel
admits that the same man wrote the Gospel and the Acts, but
denies that he was a companion of Paul. Holtzmann 1 holds
Luke to be the author of the "we" sections only. Schleier-
macher had credited the "we" sections to Timothy. A host of
critics (Baur, Clemen, De Wette, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Holtz
mann, Jiilicher, Knopf, Overbeck, Pfleiderer, Schurer, Spitta,
Von Soden, Wendt, J. Weiss, Zeller) have reached " the certain
conclusion that tradition here is wrong the Acts cannot have
been composed by a companion and fellow worker of St. Paul." 2
But this judgment of critical infallibility has been reversed by
the steady work of Blass, Credner, Harnack, Hawkins, Hobart,
Klostermann, Plummer, Ramsay, Vogel, Zahn. Plummer 3
courageously says: "It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that
nothing in Biblical criticism is more certain than the statement
that the author of the Acts was a companion of St. Paul."
There is no manner of doubt that the author of the "we" sec
tions of Acts (16 : 10-40; 20 : 6-28 : 31) was a companion of
Paul. There is no other way to explain the use of "we" and
" us." It may have been a diary or travel document or travel
notes, but the author was with Paul.

Is he the same writer as the author of the Acts as a whole?
It is here that patient labor has borne results. Klostermann 4
has dealt carefully with the "we" sections. B. Weiss in his
commentary on Acts and Hawkins in his Horce Synopticce
have proven the unity of the Book of Acts. There may (or
may not) have been an Aramaic source for the earlier part of
Acts, as Torrey claims. 5 We shall look into that later. Har
nack 6 with great minuteness has compared the Greek of the
"we" sections with that of the rest of the Acts. He says: 7 "It
has often been stated and often proved that the we sections
in vocabulary, in syntax, and in style are most intimately
bound up with the whole work, and that this work itself (in
cluding the Gospel), in spite of all diversity in its parts, is dis
tinguished by a grand unity of literary form." With great
detail Harnack follows this line of argument in his Luke the

1 Einl., p. 383. 2 Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 6.

8 Commentary on St. Luke, p. xii.

4 Vindicice Lucance, 1866.

6 The Composition and Date of Acts, 1916.

6 Luke the Physician, pp. 26-120. 7 Ibid., p. 26.

8 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Physician and The Acts of the Apostles. It is not merely agree
ment in words that we see, but the same syntax and style. He
returns to the subject in The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic
Gospels (1911), and meets the objections of Clemen and others
to the identity of the author of the "we" sections with the
author of the whole book. He had said that "a difference in
the authorship of the third gospel and the Acts can be alleged
with much more plausible reasons than a difference in the
authorship of the Acts as a whole and the we sections." 1
The upshot of the whole investigation is seen to be this: "In
the we sections the author speaks his own language and
writes in his usual style; in the rest of the work just so much
of this style makes its appearance as was allowed by the nature
of the sources which he used and the historical and religious
coloring which he aimed at imparting." 2 Like a true artist
in style Luke reflects his sources in both the Gospel and the
Acts, but not to the obliteration of his own style and method.

It can hardly be maintained that a compiler of the Acts care
lessly retained the "we" and "us" like slovenly mediseval
chroniclers. This author is no unskilled writer and knows
how to work over his material. Overbeck 3 prefers Zeller s
theory that the "we" is left designedly because the compiler
wished to create the impression that he was one of Paul s com
panions, so as to recommend his book. But Theophilus would
not be taken in by a subterfuge like that. The only other alter
native is the view that the writer of the Acts is himself the
author of the "we" sections and the companion of Paul. Lin
guistic considerations give strong support to this view. 4 Even
in Luke s Gospel there are eighty-four words common to it
and Paul s Epistles that are not found in the other gospels.
In the Acts the number is much greater.

McGiffert in his History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age
(1897) argues with great ability for the compilation theory of
the Acts and vigorously assails the Lukan authorship. He
dissects the book mercilessly and regards it as a second-hand
work. But Harnack brushed aside McGiffert s criticisms.

1 Luke the Physician, p. 7, n. 2.

2 Harnack, Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, pp. 20 f.

3 Cf . Zeller, I, 43 (English tr.), and S. Davidson, Introduction to N. T..
II, 272.

4 Hawkins, Horce Synopticce, p. 183.

THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 9

Ramsay 1 says: "Doctor McGiffert has not convinced me; in
other words, I think his clever argumentation is sophistical."
In spite of MeGiffert s attacks and Torrey s theory about the
Aramaic document for the early part of Acts, the argument
holds, as the result of this long conflict, that the same man is
the author of both Gospel and Acts and he was a companion of
Paul.

4. This Companion of Paul a Physician. It can be stated
in the words of Hawkins 2 that the linguistic argument for unity
of authorship of Acts appears "irresistible." There is, then,
"an immense balance of evidence" in favor of the view that
the author of Acts was a companion of Paul, since he was the
writer of the "we" sections. 3 The next step, and an inevitable
one, is the fact that this companion of Paul, the author of Acts,
was a physician. There is no such statement in the Gospel
or in the Acts. But the cumulative linguistic evidence to that
effect is compelling and quite conclusive to one who is open to
the proof. Zahn 4 puts the matter tersely and strongly thus:
"Hobart has proved for every one who can at all appreciate
proof that the author of the Lukan work was a man practised
in the scientific language of Greek medicine in short, a Greek
physician." The detailed proof of this claim must be reserved
for Chapter VII. But at this point it is necessary for one to
realize the force of the argument as a whole. The credit for
this line of argument is due to Hobart s The Medical Language
of St. Luke (1882), in which with utmost precision and minute
ness the medical terms in the Gospel and Acts are examined in
comparison with the writings of the leading Greek physicians
(Galen, Hippocrates, Dioscorides, Aretseus, and the rest).
Like most champions of a new line of argument, Hobart has
claimed too much. Some of the words employed by Luke and
the other physicians belong to the common speech of the time
and have no technical sense. But some of these common
words do acquire a technical significance with a physician.
Thus in Acts 28 : 6 the natives in Malta expected that Paul
"would have swollen," we read. This word 5 appears here only
in the New Testament and is the technical medical term for

1 "The Authorship of the Acts," in Pauline and Other Studies, p. 305.

2 Hawkins, Horce Synopticce, p. 185.

3 Hawkins, Horce Synopticce, p. 189.
Einl, II, 427.

10 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

inflammation in Galen and Hippocrates. 1 The writer of the
Gospel shows a clear desire to avoid a reflection on physicians
that appears in Mark s Gospel. In Mark 5 : 26, we read that
the woman with an issue of blood "had suffered many things
of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was
nothing bettered, but rather grew worse." Now Luke (8 : 43)
describes her as one "who had spent all her living upon physi
cians, and could not be healed of any." He took care of the
physicians very neatly in his restatement of Mark s sly "dig"
at the doctors. Hers was simply a chronic case that no physi
cian could cure.

In the Acts we note the clear implication that the writer
practised medicine in Malta. Paul "prayed, and laying his
hands on him healed 2 him" (28:8); we read of the cure of
Publius, an evident miracle that Luke reports. But he pro
ceeds (verses 9-10): "And when this was done, the rest also
that had diseases in the island came, and were cured." 3 It is
to be noted that Luke employs a different Greek word for
"were cured," a word that was common for medical cases.
The natural implication is that Luke practised medicine here
in Malta while Paul healed by miraculous power. The medical
missionary and the preacher were at work side by side. Luke
may have used prayer like Paul. One hopes that he did, as
all physicians should. But he practised his medical art by the
side of Paul. The people of Malta honored both Luke and
Paul. Luke was no "wild enthusiast who cured diseases" but
a "man who continued to practise his profession of physician
with success, and who in it had earned the permanent esteem
of a man of such high temper as St. Paul." 4 Harnack 5 is abso
lutely convinced by the arguments of Hobart: "The evidence
is of overwhelming force; so that it seems to me that no doubt
can exist that the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were
composed by a physician" (italics his). Deductions have to be
made from Hobart s list of medical words in the Gospel and
Acts. "But, when all deductions have been made, there re
mains a body of evidence that the author of the Acts naturally

1 Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke, p. 50.

3 lOepaxeuovTo. Ramsay (Luke the Physician, pp. 16 f .) insists that I6epa-
ics6ovTo means ("received medical treatment" whether "cured" or not.

4 Harnack, The Acts of the Apostks, p. xl.
6 Luke the Physician, p. 198.

THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 11

and inevitably slipped into the use of medical phraseology,
which seems to me irresistible." 1 Chase 2 actually complained
that for twenty years Hobart s work "remained unnoticed by
the assailants of the traditional view of the third Gospel and
Acts." But this complaint can no longer be made. Clemen 3
has endeavored to show that a physician could not have written
the Gospel and Acts: "Truly the author of these writings em
ploys some medical terms in their technical sense, but in a few
cases he uses them in such a way as no physician would have
done." But it is very hard to prove a negative. Hobart
undoubtedly claimed too much, but Clemen has attempted the
impossible. "One cannot know to-day what an ancient phy
sician could not have written. Of course the absence of marked
medical traits does not prove that a doctor did not write Luke
and Acts." 4 Cadbury s monograph is a reasoned attempt to
prove that "the style of Luke bears no more evidence of medi
cal interest and training than does the language of other writers
who were not physicians." 5 Cadbury claims that many of
these medical terms belonged to the language of culture of the
time and occur hi the writings of Lucian, "the travelling
rhetorician and show lecturer," quite as much as in the Gospel
and Acts. There is something in this point beyond a doubt,
but Paul was just as much a man of culture as Luke. So was
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet these two New
Testament writers of culture do not reveal a fondness for
medical language. It is difficult to make comparisons because
of difference in subject-matter and length of books. The mere
tabulation of lists of words does not carry one very far. Cad-
bury 6 admits that the selected lists of medical terms given by
Harnack, Moffatt, and Zahn "have greatly strengthened the
argument by selecting from Hobart only the most convincing
examples." Cadbury is wholly right in insisting that these
examples need testing. He undertakes to do it, though con
scious of the difficulties in his way. His method is merely one
of tabulation, which means very little. The upshot of the
whole matter is that the impression of the most striking exam
ples in the Gospel and Acts remains unshaken. Hobart gives

1 Chase, The Credibility of the Acts, pp. 13 f. 2 Ibid., p. 14.

3 Hibbert Journal, 1910, pp. 785 f .

4 Cadbury, The Style and Literary Language of Luke, 1919, p. 51.

p. 50. 6 IUd., p. 39,

12 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

the full quotations from the Greek medical writers so that one
can see the context. We have the context in the Gospel and
the Acts. The effect of Hobart s argument remains with me
after a careful study of Cadbury s arguments. Most impres
sive of all is it to read Mark s reports of the miracles and then
Luke s modifications. And then the reading of the Gospel
and the Acts straight through leaves the same conviction that
we are following the lead of a cultivated physician whose pro
fessional habits of thought have colored the whole in many
subtle ways. This positive impression refuses to be dissipated,
though Cadbury is quite right in saying that Luke could still
be the author even if he does not betray by his language that
he is a physician. Further details will be given in Chapter VII.

It ought to be added that the medical element is spread over
the Gospel and the Acts and is another argument for the unity
of Acts. 1

5. This Physician and Companion of Paul Is Luke. The
writer does not say so. In fact, the absence of any mention
of the name Luke in the Acts is one of the things to be ex
plained. This "is just what we should expect if he himself
were the author of the book." So Harnack argues. 2 But it is
a bit curious that every other important friend of Paul, judg
ing by his Epistles, except Luke and Titus, is mentioned in the
Acts. Aristarchus, coupled with Luke (Col. 4 : 10, 14; Phile
mon 24), is mentioned in the Acts three times. Once (Acts
27 : 2) Aristarchus is mentioned as present with Paul and the
author of the book (Luke). Three reasons occur for the
omission of Titus. One, the view of Harnack, 3 is that Titus
is not coupled with Luke in the Epistles and hence the omis
sion of his name in Acts is not strange. This is not quite sat
isfactory. It is easy to see why Luke, though retaining "we"
and "us" in his travel diary, declines to mention his own
name. It would be known to Theophilus and thus to others.
But why omit Titus? Lightfoot 4 denies that Titus was im
portant enough to be mentioned in Acts, but Ramsay 8 rightly
rejects that explanation. It has been suggested by A. Souter
and others (cf. Origen s view of II Cor. 8 : 18) that Luke and

1 Moffatt, Introduction to Lit. of the N. JT., p. 300.

2 The Date of the Ats and the Synoptic Gosvels, p. 28.

* Ibid., p. 28, n. 2. Biblical Essays, p. 281.

6 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 390.

THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 13

Titus were brothers and that for this reason Luke does not
call his name. It is possible to understand II Cor. 12 : 18 to
be a reference to Titus s brother. This use of the Greek article
is common enough. 1 " I exhorted Titus, and I sent his brother
with him." The same translation is possible in II Cor. 8 : 18,
"his brother." Who is this brother of Titus? One naturally
thinks of Luke.

Paul had other companions, but they have to be eliminated
one by one. Some are spoken of in a way that renders it diffi
cult to think of them as writing the Acts. This is true of
Aquila and Priscilla, Aristarchus, Mark, Silas, Timothy, Tro-
phimus. Selwyn 2 argues at length, but not at all convincingly,
that Luke and Silas are one and the same man. Crescens and
Titus Justus are rather too insignificant. There remain only
Titus and Luke. Curiously both names are absent in the
Acts, as already noted. "The movements of Timothy, Silas
and the others cannot be fitted in with the hypothesis that any
one of them was the companion at the time in question. The
hypothesis breaks down in every case. With the exception of
Titus, for whose authorship there is no other evidence, each
one of them can be shown to have been elsewhere at one or
more of the times. Luke is with me at them all." 3 No
one seriously argues that Titus wrote the Gospel and Acts.
Why not Luke ? Titus was not a physician. Was Luke ?

We know that Luke was with Paul in Rome (Philemon 24,
"Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers") 4 dur
ing his first imprisonment. He is also called by Paul at this
time "Luke the beloved physician" 6 (Col. 4: 14). Harnack 6
argues quite plausibly that Paul means to call "Luke my
beloved physician." At any rate it is quite possible, indeed
probable, that Luke was Paul s physician as well as helper in
the mission work. It is quite possible that Luke, called in as
physician either at Antioch during Paul s stay there, or in
Galatia during a sudden malarial attack (Gal. 4 : 13), or at
Troas, where we first note his presence with Paul, was con
verted by his patient to the service of Christ. He is with

1 Robertson, Grammar, p. 770. z St. Luke the Prophet.

3 Carpenter, The Christianity of S. Luke, p. 14.

4 ol ouvepfoC IAOU. The "we" sections of the Acts show Luke s work
with Paul. Cf. Acts 16 : 10.

6 6 aTpb&lt;; 6 ^cti^^q. 8 Luke the Physician, p. 3, n. 2.

14 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Paul at the last. "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4 : 11).
Luke, therefore, fulfils precisely the conditions called for by
the evidence unless there is positive external evidence to the
contrary.

But the external evidence is unanimously in favor of Luke
as the author of the Gospel and the Acts. "The unanimous
tradition that St. Luke is the author of the Acts of the Apos
tles has come to us with the book itself." * The Lukan author
ship of both Gospel and Acts has been universally recognized
since 140 A. D. 2 Since it is all one way it is needless to cite
it. Specific statements of the Lukan authorship occur in
Irenseus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and the Mura-
torian Canon.

The case seems to be made out. Certainly Kirsopp Lake
cannot be accused of partiality for traditional views any more
than Harnack. In the Hastings Dictionary of the Apostolic
Church (article "Acts of the Apostles") Lake concludes: "The
argument from literary affinities between the we-clauses and
the rest of Acts remains at present unshaken; and, until some
further analysis succeeds in showing why it should be thought
that the we-clauses have been taken from a source not written
by the redactor himself, the traditional view that Luke, the
companion of St. Paul, was the editor of the whole book is the
most reasonable one." That is cautious enough to suit any
timid soul and seems to express the rather reluctant admission
of Lake that is forced by the overwhelming evidence. Har
nack 3 pays his respects to the "attitude of general mistrust
in the book, with airy conceits and lofty contempt; most of
all, however, with the fruits of that vicious method wherein
great masses of theory are hung upon the spider s thread of a
single observation." Moffatt 4 concludes that the Lukan
authorship of the Gospel and the Acts "has now been put
practically beyond doubt by the exhaustive researches of Haw
kins and Harnack." As for myself, I am bound to agree to
this judgment of M. Jones: 5 "This author of Acts and the

1 Harnack, Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 28.

* Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 2.

* The Acts of the Apostles, p. xlii.

4 Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, p. 295. See also
Burkitt, Gospel History and Its Transmission, pp. 115 f.
6 New Testament in Twentieth Century, p. 231.

THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 15

third gospel is to be identified with St. Luke the companion,
friend, and physician of St. Paul." In the light of all the facts
known to-day, after a generation and more of the most exact
ing criticism and research, the theory of the Lukan author
ship holds the field, greatly strengthened by the new light that
has come. Scholarship can point with pride to what has been
done in this field of Biblical investigation. The picture of
Luke now stands before us in sharp outline.

CHAPTER II

A SKETCH OF LUKE S CAREER
"Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4 : 11)

If Luke, the physician and friend of Paul, really wrote the
Gospel and Acts, as is now proven as clearly as a literary fact
can be shown, one naturally has a keen desire to know some
thing about him. He was evidently a modest man and kept
himself in the background in both Gospel and Acts, save in
the incidental allusions in the "we" sections of Acts. Indeed,
the anonymous author of Supernatural Religion seeks to
obscure the items that are given and to befog the picture of
Luke that has survived. "Let it be remembered that with
the exception of the three passages in the Pauline Epistles
quoted above, we know absolutely nothing about Luke." 1
The writer then proceeds to throw doubt on the identity of the
Luke in Col. 4 : 14 and Philemon 24 and II Tun. 4:11. He
speaks of "this literary labyrinth" (p. 41) of the "we" pas
sages in Acts and throws Luke into the waste-basket. But
modern scholarship, thanks to Lightfoot, Hawkins, Hobart,
Ramsay, Harnack and others, has thrown aside the three able
volumes on Supernatural Religion that were expected to destroy
the New Testament. Let us piece together the known facts
concerning Luke.

1. The Name Luke. It is now known for a certainty that
Loukas 2 is an abbreviation or pet-name (Kosennamen) for
Loukios. 3 There used to be a deal of speculation on the sub
ject. Lucanus, Lucilius, Lucianus, Lucius were all suggested.
Lucanus is common in inscriptions. 4 Several Old-Latin manu
scripts of the fifth century read secundum Lukanum instead of
the usual secundum Lucam, probably "due to learned specula-r
tion and discussion about the origin of the form" 5 Loukas.

1 Supernatural Religion, vol. Ill, p. 39.

2 Aouxdtq. 8 Ao&xto?.
4 Plummer, Comm. on Luke, p. xviii.

6 Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 371.

A SKETCH OF LUKE S CAREER 17

"We have to ask whether or not the Greek name LouMos,
borrowed from the Latin Lucius, could according to Greek
custom have as a familiar by-form the Kosennamen Loukas." 1
It is purely a matter of evidence. The proof has been found.
On the walls of the peribolos which surrounded the sanctuary
of the god Men Askaenos in Antioch are written a number of
dedicatory vows to the god. Some of them are in Latin, but
most of them "are the work of Greek-speaking people, who
bore Roman names." 2 One of these dedications in Greek is
by Loukas Tillios Kriton and Noumeria Venusta (evidently
his wife). Both names are Roman, and Loukas appears as
Greek for the Latin Lucius. In another instance the same
man makes two dedications. In one instance the name of his
son occurs as Loukios, in the other as Loukas. 3 There is no
longer room for dispute on this point. The vernacular Koine
did employ Loukas as a pet-name (cf . Charlie and Charles) for
the Latin Lucius (Greek Loukios). We find this in Antioch.
It may have been true anywhere. In Acts 13 : 1 we read of
"Loukios the Cyrenian," but it is quite unlikely that he is the
same person as our Luke, the author of the book, though it is
the same name, as has just been shown. If Luke is the author
of the Acts, he would hardly refer to himself as "Loukios the
Cyrenian." The use of abbreviated names is common in the
New Testament (cf. Silas and Silvanus, Prisca and Priscilla,
Apollos and Apollonius) as in the papyri and inscriptions. 4
Plummer 5 terms it "a caricature of critical ingenuity" to make
Lucanus = Silvanus because lucus = silva. Selwyn in his St.
Luke the Prophet argues for this identification in most incon
clusive fashion. A name may count for nothing, it is true, and
then again a name may stand for much. "The name of a con
temporary and eye-witness guarantees the truth of a probable
story, provided there is no other reason for raising objections." 6

1 Ibid.

2 Ibid. See article in Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1912, pp. 144 ff., by
Mrs. Hasluck, where the evidence is given in full.

3 Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, pp. 376-380.

4 Robertson, Grammar, pp. 171-3.

6 Comm. on Luke, p. xviii. Moulton (Grammar of N. T. Greek, vol. II,
part I, p. 88) quotes Aetixco? for Latin Lucius in P. Tebt., I, 33, 3 (B. C. 112).
Nachmanson (Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der altgriechischen Volkssprache, p. 61)
notes other instances and considers it a different name from

6 Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 146.

18 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Fortunately Luke is no longer an obscure name and we can
"picture to ourselves the personality which stands behind the
name Luke." 1

2. A Gentile, Probably a Greek In Col. 4 : 12-14 Paul sep
arates Epaphras, Luke and Demas from Aristarchus, Mark
and Jesus Justus, "who are of the circumcision" (4:10f.).
Paul here seems to imply that Luke was not a Jew. This is
the view of commentators generally, though Hofmann, Tiele
and Wittichen argue that Paul s language does not necessarily
mean this. It is possible that Luke could have been a proselyte
(a tradition mentioned by Jerome), but there is no hint of such
a thing in Acts or the Epistles. In Philemon 23 f ., Paul draws
no such line of cleavage between those who send greetings.
In Romans 16 : 21 Paul calls "Loukios and Jason and Sosipater,
my kinsmen." As in Acts 13 : 1, so here the name Loukios,
as we have seen, could be the formal spelling of the familiar
Loukas. But this kinsman 2 of Paul was a Jew and is ruled out
by the distinction drawn in Col. 4 : 10-14. The knowledge of
Aramaic shown by Luke s use of Aramaic sources in Luke 1
and 2 and in Acts 1-15 does not show that he was a Jew. In
deed, Torrey 3 argues that Luke did not always understand his
Aramaic document, if he had one. Per contra, the classic intro
duction to the Gospel (1 : 1-4) seems quite impossible for a
Jew to have written, even if he were a man of culture. It ranks
with the introductions of Herodotus and Thucydides for brev
ity, modesty and dignity. It is couched in purest literary
Koine. Other things in his writings confirm the view that he
was originally a heathen and not a Jew. He has the wide
sympathy of a Gentile of culture and approaches Christianity
from the outside. If he is a Gentile, as seems most probable,
he is the only writer of the New Testament (or the Old) of
whom this is true.

It is probable also that Luke was a Greek rather than a
Roman, since in Acts 28 : 2, 4 he speaks of the inhabitants of
Malta as "the barbarians," quite in the Greek fashion. The

1 Harnack, ibid., p. 146.

2 Ramsay suggests that these six kinsmen of Paul in Romans. 16 : 7-21 are
fellow tribesmen and fellow citizens of Tarsus. Cf . The Cities of St. Paul,
p. 177.

8 The Composition and Date of the Acts. Kirsopp Lake ("Luke," Has-
tings s Diet, of the Apostolic Church) holds that the facts about Luke can be
met on the hypothesis that he was a Hellenistic Jew. But not so easily.

A SKETCH OF LUKE S CAREER 19

Greek antithesis was "Greeks and barbarians," as Paul used
it in Romans 1 : 14. But Miss Stawell in a paper on " St. Luke
and Virgil" at the International Medical Congress in Oxford
in 1913 argued that Luke was a Roman and not a Greek. She
argues that some of the greatest medical authorities of the
day were Romans, like Celsus (about 50 A. D.), who were
familiar with the Greek medical writers, as was Luke. She
pleads that Luke lived in Philippi, a Roman colony, and had a
fondness for Rome, as the close of the Acts shows. She argues,
also, that Luke is a Latin name, " a surname in the gens Anncea
to which Seneca, Gallio, and Lucan all belonged." l His ap
parent liberty in Rome while Paul was a prisoner may be due
to his being a cadet of that house. She draws a parallel be
tween the ^Eneid and the Acts. Jones agrees that the sugges
tion is "both instructive and picturesque" (p. 235). Ramsay 2
allows as one of the possibilities about the name Luke that
"the evangelist might have been a Hellene bearing the simple
name Loukios." In that case he was not a slave and not a
Roman citizen, not a Roman at all, but "an ordinary free
Hellene." His full name thus was Loukios, without nomen or
cognomen. He says that the other alternative is that "Lucius
may have been his prcenomen as a Roman citizen; and in that
case it would follow almost certainly that the physician Lou
kios was a freedman, who acquired the full Roman name when
he was set free." But in neither case would Luke be a Latin
by birth. We seem, therefore, shut up to the idea that Luke
was a native Greek, not Latin. Whether he acquired Roman
citizenship is uncertain, though possible. The use of Roman
names was very common and does not of itself prove that
Luke was not Greek.

3. Possibly a Freedman. It has already been suggested by
Ramsay that "physicians were often freedmen; and freedmen
were frequently addressed by their prcenomen, which marked
their rank." 3 And Loukios (Latin Lucius) could be the prceno-
men of our Luke (Loukas) as a Roman citizen. Ramsay adds
that "the custom of society would make it probable that this
physician, who led for many years the life of a companion of
Paul, was not born a Roman citizen (as perhaps Silvanus

1 M. Jones, N. T. in Twentieth Century, p. 233.

2 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 382.

3 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 382,

20 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

was)." 1 Ramsay notes, however, that "a libertus usually
remained in close relation to his former master, who continued
to be his patronus" 2 But there were exceptions. There seems
no way to reach a positive conclusion on this point. Paul had
a Roman name (besides the Hebrew name of Saul) and also
Roman citizenship. Paul was not a freedman, but free born
(Acts 22 : 28). Luke s ready pen, his versatility and his inter
est in the sea are Greek traits, 3 whether Luke was a free
Hellene or a Greek slave set free with Roman citizenship and a
Roman name.

Ramsay declines to express an opinion as to whether Luke
was a freedman. Dean Plumptre 4 has made the interesting
suggestion that the Roman poet Lucanus, born A. D. 39 in
Corduba, Spain, was named after the physician Luke. It
was a common practice for children to be named after a be
loved physician. Hayes 5 is quite taken with the idea. He
thinks that Luke "was born a slave in the household of The-
ophilus, a wealthy government official in Antioch." 6 If so,
Theophilus set him free, after educating him as a physician.
Luke then won Theophilus to Christ and Theophilus continued
Luke s patron. Gallio and Seneca were uncles of the poet
Lucanus. If Luke told Lucanus about Paul, it is easy to think
that he may have told Gallio and Seneca about the Apostle.
Thus the kindness of Gallio to Paul in Corinth is explained,
and the traditional friendship between Paul and Seneca has
some possible foundation. 7 It is a pleasing fancy, but that is
all one can say.

4. Probably the Brother of Titus. There are other conjec
tures about Luke that may be dismissed at this point. If he
was either a Greek or a Roman, free or freedman, he was not
one of the Seventy (Epiphanius) or the unnamed disciple with
Cleophas (Luke 24 : 13) according to "Theophylact s attrac
tive guess, which still finds advocates." 8 Not being a Jew, he
is ruled out ipso facto. That is not true of the conjecture that

i/Wa. 2/Wd.,p. 383.

3 Rackham, Comm. on Acts, p. xxviii.

4 Books of the Bible, N. T., pp. 74 f .

6 The Synoptic Gospels and the Acts, pp. 179 f ., 197 f .

6 Ibid., p. 197.

7 Cf . Lightfoot s Essay on St. Paul, and Seneca, Comm. on Philippians,
pp. 207-333.

8 Plummer, Comm., p. xix.

A SKETCH OF LUKE S CAREER 21

he was one of the Greeks who came to Philip (John 12 : 20).
It is possible in itself, but there is no proof for it and it seems
to be ruled out by the implication in Luke 1 : 1-4 that the
author is not one of the eye-witnesses. But it is possible that
Origen and Chrysostom are correct in thinking that Luke was
" the brother whose praise in the gospel was spread through all
the churches" and who was the companion of Titus (II Cor.
8 : 18; 12 : 18). 1 This can be true even if he is not the brother
of Titus, as is probable. If he is the brother of Titus, as the
Greek idiom naturally implies, then Luke is a Greek, not a
Roman by birth; for Titus is a Greek (Gal. 2 : 3). And if a
Greek, he is possibly, though not necessarily, a freedman.
Thus far we seem to be quite within the range of probability.
It may be added that in some manuscripts (of II Cor.) Luke
is mentioned in the subscription as one of the bearers of the
Epistle along with Titus.

5. Luke s Birthplace. This matter is still in dispute. There
is something to be said for Antioch in Syria, for Philippi and
for Antioch in Pisidia. "The Clementines tell us that The-
ophilus was a wealthy citizen of Antioch." 2 If Luke had been
the slave of Theophilus and was now a freedman, this would
indicate that he was born in Antioch, though the argument is
wholly hypothetical. But there are other considerations.
The Codex Bezse 3 after Acts 11 : 27 has the following peculiar
reading: "And there was great rejoicing; and when we were
gathered together one of them stood up and said." This may
be a mere Western addition, but it represents an early tradi
tion that Luke was associated with Antioch during the stay of
Barnabas and Saul there. Blass 4 is confident that it is the
insertion of Luke himself in the revision: "Now this we, which
is also attested by St. Augustine, clearly shows that the author
was at that time a member of the church at Antioch, which is
the tradition given by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3 : 4, 7) and
others." Eusebius speaks of "Luke being by birth of those
from Antioch." 5 This certainly means that Luke s family

1 See5. in Chapter I.

2 Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 194.

3 This remarkable reading in the B text is ^v S& icoXX-?)

4 Philology of the Gospels, p. 131 . Cf . also Blass, Ada Apostolorum, p. 137 ;

Lucuntissimwn testimonium, quo auctor sese Antiochenum fitisse monstrat"

8 Aouxdc&lt;; tb (Uv y^vot; &lt;Sv -cwv dcrc

22 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

came from Antioch, but it hardly "amounts to an assertion
that Luke was not an Antiochian," as Ramsay 1 argues. The
expression of Eusebius is "awkward," but not "obviously
chosen in order to avoid the statement that Luke was an
Antiochian." 2 In fact, Jerome 3 plainly speaks of "Luke the
physician of Antioch." Likewise Euthalius 4 describes Luke as
"being by birth an Antiochian." Once more the Prcefatio
Lucce (placed in third century by Harnack) speaks of "Luke,
by nation a Syrian of Antioch." Plummer 5 concludes that
"this is probable in itself and is confirmed by the Acts. Of
only one of the deacons are we told to which locality he be
longed, * Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch (6:5): and we see
elsewhere that the writer was well acquainted with Antioch
and took an interest in it (11 : 19-27; 13 : 1; 14 : 19, 21, 26;
15 : 22, 23, 30, 35; 18 : 22)." Antioch in Acts is the new cen
tre of Christian activity. It cannot be said that this evidence
is absolutely convincing, but it renders it probable that Luke
was born and reared in Antioch in Syria, though he spent his
later years elsewhere, as in Philippi, Csesarea, Rome.

But Ramsay, like Renan, argues for Philippi as the place
of Luke s nativity. He suggests that, since Antioch was a
Seleucid foundation, there was a Macedonian element in the
population. "Thus it may very well have happened that
Luke was a relative of one of the early Antiochian Christians;
and this relationship was perhaps the authority for Eusebius s
carefully guarded statement." Ramsay 6 even suggests that
"perhaps Titus was the relative of Luke; and Eusebius found
this statement in an old tradition attached to II Cor. 8 : 18,
12 : 18, where Titus and Luke (the latter not named by Paul,
but identified by an early tradition) are associated as envoys
to Corinth." But in II Cor. 12 : 18 "the brother" can nat
urally mean "his brother," but not "his relative," though it
can mean "cousin," as Ramsay 7 notes. If Titus and Luke
were brothers, they were naturally born in the same city.
Ramsay admits that " there is not sufficient evidence to justify

1 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 389. 2 Ramsay, ibid.

3 De Vir. III., vii. Lucas Medicus Antiochensis.

4 Migne, Pair. Gk., vol. LXXXV, p. 633. Avrtoxed? Y*P OCJTO? &x&lt;*pxo&gt;v -cb
ylvo?

6 Comm. on Luke, p. xxi. 8 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 390.

7 Luke the Physician, p. 18, n. 1.

A SKETCH OF LUKE S CAREER 23

an opinion." He exaggerates the difficulty about Eusebius
and increases the problem in II Cor. 12 : 18. Ramsay urges,
also, the civic pride shown by Luke in pointing out that Philippi
is the first city of that division of Macedonia. But his long
residence in Philippi would amply explain such pride. Ram
say also argues that in Acts 16 : 9-10 "the man from Mace
donia" is Luke who had been speaking with Paul about Mace
donia the day before the vision. This is plausible and quite
possible, though Luke, if now a resident of Philippi, may have
gone there from Antioch, either before his conversion or after
ward. There is nothing in Acts 16 : 9-10 to indicate that Luke
and Paul have met for the first time. Rackham 1 holds that " it
is extremely unlikely that S. Luke met S. Paul for the first
time at Troas," though Ramsay 2 argues this view. Carpenter 3
thinks that "the two views may be combined by supposing
that he was an Antiochian who was in medical practice at
Philippi."

Rackham 4 urges Antioch in Pisidia as the place of Luke s
birth. He accepts the South Galatian theory that Paul wrote
to the churches founded in the first mission tour. He holds
that Luke met Paul first at Antioch in Pisidia, where he
preached "because of an infirmity of the flesh" (Gal. 4 : 13),
when Luke was called in as physician. He suggests that Luke
descended from an old Philippian family that had settled here.
His theory is that Luke went to Antioch in Syria when Paul
came to the help of Barnabas, having been converted at Tar
sus by Paul before going to Antioch. It can only be said that
this view is possible, though nothing like so plausible as the
tradition that Luke is a native of Antioch in Syria. The ques
tion cannot be settled yet. Some day we may know.

6. Luke s Education. It is plain enough that the man who
wrote the Gospel and the Acts was a man of genuine culture.
As a physician he "belonged to the middle or higher plane of
contemporary culture. To this plane we are directed not only
by the prologue of the Gospel, but by the literary standard
attained in the whole work." 5 "This man possessed the higher
culture in rich measure," 6 as his use of his materials in the

1 Comm. on Acts, p. xxx. 2 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 201.

3 The Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 20.

4 So Kendall on the basis of if)^? in Acts 14 : 23.

6 Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 13. 8 Ibid.

24 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Gospel and the Acts proves. "He had at his command an
average education, and possessed a more than ordinary lit
erary talent." 1 If a freedman of Theophilus at Antioch, he
would receive a good education in the schools there. As a
physician, he would be sent by Theophilus either to Alexandria,
Athens or Tarsus, the great universities of the time. Alex
andria seems unlikely in the absence of any allusion to the
city. 2 We know that Luke seems familiar with Athens
(Acts 17), but Tarsus is much more likely. Hayes 3 considers
it almost certain that Luke was sent to Tarsus and at the same
time with Paul and Barnabas, while Apollos was in the Alex
andrian university. If Apollos wrote Hebrews, it is easy to
see what a great part was played in early Christianity by these
college or university men who became fast friends. In Tarsus
Luke would receive a good classical education, and would study
medicine " where the great masters in that profession, Aretseus,
Dioscorides and Athenaeus, had been educated. Just a few
miles away, at ^Egse, stood the great Temple of ^Esculapius,
which furnished the nearest approach to the modern hospital
to be found in the ancient world. From the university lec
tures Luke got the theory of medicine; in the Temple of Mscu-
lapius he got the practice and experience needed." Thus
Hayes 4 indulges his fancy in reproducing the probable educa
tional environment of Luke. Plummer agrees that it is more
than probable that Luke studied in " Tarsus, where there was
a school of philosophy and literature rivalling those of Alex
andria and Athens/ for "nowhere else in Asia Minor could he
obtain so good an education." 5

And yet Ramsay 6 quotes Strabo as saying that no students
ever came from outside Tarsus to the university, in this
respect falling behind Athens and Alexandria and other schools
that drew students to their halls. So one has to pause before
concluding that Luke went to Tarsus. Of course Strabo may
mean that not many outsiders came. The city of Tarsus was
dominated by the university of which they were proud. It

1 Ibid., p. 147. 2 Rackham, Comm. on Acts, p. xxviii.

3 Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 197.

4 Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 197.

B Comm. on Luke, p. xxi. Cf . Strabo, XIV, 5, 13, ?iXo&lt;jo?(av xal T^V fiXXijv
icoeiSefav lyxfixXiov Sxaaav.
6 "The Cities of St. Paul" (The University of Tarsus, p. 232).

A SKETCH OF LUKE S CAREER 25

was a great university in the eagerness of the students for
knowledge, and in the great ability and experience of some of
the teachers and in the Hellenic freedom for teacher and pupil. 1
Strabo "praises highly the zeal for philosophy and the whole
range of education which characterized the people of Tarsus
in his time. In this respect they surpassed Athens and Alex
andria and every other seat of learning." 2 Their students went
to other great universities for further study, but were rich in the
heritage of Athenodorus, the Stoic philosopher, who spent his
closing years in the University of Tarsus. Seneca, in Rome,
quotes Athenodorus, and Paul must have felt the influence of
this "greatest of pagan Tarsians." Ramsay 3 suggests that
Athenodorus s influence on both Seneca and Paul is the prob
able explanation of the likeness in their phraseology. Athen
odorus "was long worshipped as a hero by his country," and
he influenced the university life long after his death. If Luke
went to Tarsus, he entered into an atmosphere of great tradi
tions, young as the school was in comparison with some others.
Of one thing we may be sure. Luke received a liberal educa
tion at one or more of the great technical schools of the time
and probably at Tarsus.

7. Luke s Conversion. Here we are wholly in the field of
speculation. It seems clear that Luke was not a follower of
Jesus in the flesh. The Muratorian Canon says: "But neither
did he see the Lord in the flesh." It also states that Luke
became a follower of Paul after the Ascension of Christ. Jerome
mentions a tradition that Luke became a proselyte to Judaism
before he became a Christian, but it is unsupported. The
Western reading (Codex Bezae) of Acts 11 :28 (the "we" sec
tion at Antioch) "would require that his conversion to Chris
tianity take place before St. Paul met him." 4 This might have
been under the influence of the "men of Cyprus and Cyrene,
fleeing from Jerusalem; and Luke was among the first to hear
it and to accept it. He told his master, Theophilus, about it,
and Theophilus himself became interested and at last con
verted. Then about the first thing that Theophilus did as a
Christian was to give Luke his freedom." 5 This is possible

1 lUd., p. 233. * Ibid., p. 232. 3 Ibid., p. 223.

4 Bebb, " Luke the Evangelist," Hastings s D. B.
6 Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 197.

26 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

and plausible. The Prcefatio Litcoe 1 speaks of Luke as "a dis
ciple of the apostle, and afterward a follower of St. Paul."
This could mean that Luke was a convert before he met Paul,
but that does not necessarily follow. Tertullian, 2 however,
speaks of Paul as Luke s magister and illuminator. Plummer 3
thinks that by these words "Tertullian perhaps means us to
understand that Luke was converted to the Gospel by Paul,
and this is in itself probable enough." If so, then Luke may
have been already converted when Paul came to Antioch at
the call of Barnabas. Rackham 4 argues that, as the Bezan
text for Acts 11 : 28 shows that Luke was in Antioch at this
time, it is probable that Luke had already been won to Christ.
" We can suppose that after much travel in the study and prac
tice of medicine he paid a visit to Tarsus and its famous uni
versity. There he met and was converted by S. Paul; and
when Barnabas came from Antioch and took back Saul with
him about the year 42 (11 : 25-26), S. Luke accompanied them."
Once more, one can only say that it is possible. If the Bezan
text for Acts 11 : 28 does record a fact, then Barnabas, Paul
and Luke are together in Antioch as early as A. D. 42. Once
more, if they were college mates at Tarsus, one can understand
afresh the new tie that now knit them together. "In all prob
ability it had begun at a most impressionable age in college
life." 5 Luke met other men of prominence in Christian work,
we know; Silas, Timothy, James, Mark, Aristarchus and
others.

Harnack 6 sees no light on this phase of the subject: "We
have no knowledge where and by whose influence he became a
Christian, nor whether he had previously come into sympa
thetic touch with the Judaism of the Dispersion; only one
thing is certain that he had never been in Palestine."

Furneaux 7 thinks that the likelihood that Luke and Paul
had been fellow students at Tarsus explains "the absence of
any record of their first meeting. It is further possible that
they had worked together at Antioch; or that Paul, when
stricken down by illness in Galatia, had sent for the beloved

1 Discipulus apostolorum, posted Paulum secutus.

2 Adv. Marcion, IV, 2. 8 Comm. on Luke, p. xx.
4 Comm. on Acts, p. xxxi.

6 Luckock, The Special Characteristics of the Four Gospels, p. 119.
6 Luke the Physician, p. 146. Comm. on Acts, p. 258.

A SKETCH OF LUKE S CAREER 27

physician/ The us of verse 10 shows that he was not a new
convert." It would be pleasing to think that Luke was won
to Christ when called in by Paul as his physician. This, to be
sure, could be true, whether at Antioch, in Galatia (4 : 13) or
at Troas. If Luke saved Paul s life in the frequent attacks of
malaria, Paul in turn saved his soul by leading him to Christ.

Ramsay 1 is positive that, though Luke was probably already
a Christian, he and Paul met for the first time at Troas. " Luke
became known to Paul for the first time here." Ramsay sug
gests that Luke was a resident of Troas at this time and that
Paul called him in as a physician for one of his malarial attacks.
What is certain is that at this point Luke injects himself pur
posely into the narrative, probably by using his own travel
diary. It may well be that Luke had been to Macedonia and
spoke to Paul about the need there. But that is not certain.
Least certain of all is Ramsay s insistence that Luke and Paul
had never met before the incident at Troas. If they had never
met before, it might be that here Paul won Luke to Christ but
for the implication in the context that Luke is already a Chris
tian. Knowling considers it probable that Luke and Paul were
friends before. Whether Luke was Paul s trophy for Christ
or not, he is now ready to follow Paul in the service of Christ.

8. The Medical Missionary. It seems plain that in the
passage before us the succeeding words in verse 10 lead to the
natural inference that Luke, too, was a preacher of the Gospel,
and had already done the work of an evangelist. " We sought
to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us
to preach the Gospel unto them." This call to preach in Mac
edonia was answered by Luke as well as by Paul, Silas and
Timothy. At the place of prayer by the riverside near Philippi
" we sat down and spake to the women that were come together "
(Acts 16 : 13). The poor girl with the spirit of soothsaying
said: "These men are servants of the Most High God, who
proclaim unto you the way of salvation" (Acts 16 : 17). Luke
was left in charge at Philippi, when Paul and Silas departed,
and he apparently remained there over six years till Paul comes
back from Corinth on the third tour on his way to Jerusalem
(Acts 20 : 5). Thence he is with Paul to the close of Acts. So
he is Luke the Evangelist because he preached as well as be
cause he wrote the Third Gospel. He had probably travelled
1 St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 200-5.

28 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

a good deal for the study and practice of his medical profession.
Now he kept up his work as a physician and added that of a
preacher of the Gospel. Like the Great Physician, he went
about doing good to the souls and the bodies of men. The
Romans did not rank the physician high, but the Greeks placed
him on a par with the philosopher. 1 Certain it is that "his
medical skill would be of use in gaining an opening for preach
ing the Gospel, as modern missionaries often find." 2 We have
already seen that in Acts 28 : 9-10 Luke seems to mean that
he practised his profession as physician during the three months
in Malta. It is also plain that "his history owes much to the
fact that he joined Paul at the critical moment when a special
revelation led him to Europe." 3 Various traditions report
Luke as preaching in Dalmatia, Gallia, Italy, Achaia, Mace
donia, Africa, Bithynia. They are all of no value save that
they testify to his work as a preacher of Christ. One report is
that he became the second bishop of Alexandria. His presence
with Paul we do know. In Philemon 24 Paul calls him a " fel
low worker/ but not a fellow prisoner, with him in Rome. At
the same time (Col. 4 : 14) he alludes to him as "the beloved
physician." In Rome he was both preacher and physician. He
was Paul s friend and companion and trusted physician. It is
evident that Paul had frail health for many years. We prob
ably owe Paul s living to old age, under God, to the skill of
Luke, his physician, who watched over him with tender solici
tude. Luke is probably one of "the messengers (apostles; lit
erally, missionaries) of the churches, the glory of Christ"
(II Cor. 8: 23). If so, he is one of the agents in the great collec
tion for the poor saints in Jerusalem, and Paul demands that
the Corinthians show unto them in the face of the churches
the proof of their love (8 : 25). "He was beloved for his med
ical skill and for his ever-aggressive and ever-attractive Chris
tianity. He might well be a model for all in the medical pro
fession." 4 He was "a doctor of the old school," the first
scientific physician who laid his skill at the feet of Jesus.
Thousands have followed in his steps and, like Luke, have

1 Rackham, Comm., p. xxviii. * Furneaux, Comm., p. 259.

3 Ibid. Canon G. W. Whitaker ("Barnabas, Luke and Bithynia," The
Expositor, December, 1919) seeks to connect Luke with Bithynia. The
Prcefatio vel argumentum Luccc does say that Luke dbiit in Bithynia.

4 Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 188.

A SKETCH OF LUKE S CAREER 29

taken Christ with them into the sick-room. Doctor W. T.
Grenfell, the "Labrador doctor" and missionary, is a modern
example of what Luke was in the first century.

9. Loyal to the Last. We have Paul s own words to prove
that Luke was true when others fled from Paul as if he had the
pestilence. That is, if we credit II Tim. to Paul, as I do.
Paul is now in the second and last Roman imprisonment. He
is facing certain death and he knows it. Nero is persecuting
followers of Jesus for the crime of Christianity. Since the
burning of Rome in A. D. 64 the whole atmosphere has changed.
Before then Paul was allowed his own hired house and much
liberty (under guard), and his friends came and went at will.
Finally Paul was set free, as the case against him fell through.
But now the air is black with death. Many Christians have
already forfeited their lives for the faith. Paul is the next
victim. Now Paul s old friends in Asia, when they come to
Rome, avoid his dungeon for fear of death. Onesiphorus dared
all and apparently lost his life (II Tim. 1 : 15-17). A faithful
band in Rome are firm (4 : 21), but most of Paul s companions
have left him Demas, Crescens, Titus; probably for good rea
sons, but they are gone. "Only Luke is with me." Luke
alone stood fast. Paul longs for Timothy and for Mark, even
Mark. Let us hope that they came before Paul was executed,
and were able to go with Paul and Luke to the execution. Luke,
doubtless, saw to the burial of the body of his great friend.

And then what? Who knows? Gregory Nazianzen ranks
Luke with Stephen, James and Peter as a martyr under Domi-
tian after a long and useful career after Paul s death. Another
story is that he died a natural death in Achaia or Bithynia.
He was loyal to Paul. He was loyal to Christ both as preacher
and physician. Irenseus speaks of Luke as inseparabilis a
Paulo. Jiingst actually denies any trace of Pauline influence
in the Gospel and the Acts. That would be amazing and is
not true. However, Luke does not copy Paul. He interprets
Paul and Peter as he interpreted Christ out of fulness of knowl
edge and with largeness of view. Examination of the Lukan
books shows no undue Pauline influence. Indeed, the portrait
of Christ in the Gospel is distinctly drawn from pre-Pauline
sources. The picture of Paul in the Acts is not taken from the
Pauline Epistles. And yet Luke s very soul was knit to Paul s
in loving affection. Paul was one of his heroes to the last.

CHAPTER III

THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS

"And he abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling, and
received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of
God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ
with all boldness, none forbidding him" (Acts 28 : 30-31).

1. The Atmosphere of the First Century. It may now be
stated definitely that the second-century date for the Gospel
and Acts has been abandoned save by a small number of ex
ceedingly radical critics. The general acceptance of the Lukan
authorship of the two books disposes of the Baur theory that
it was a religious romance written for the purpose of reconciling
the opposition between Peter and Paul. The notion that
Luke s Gospel made use of that of Marcion has been given up.
It is now known that Marcion used a mutilated edition of
Luke s Gospel. Blass 1 holds that Marcion had the Western
text of Luke s Gospel. The arguments for the second century
(105-130) are given at length by Schmiedel (Enc. Biblica) and
by Holtzmann. 2 It is argued that the author made use of
Paul s Epistles, of Josephus, that he imitated Plutarch s
Lives in his picture of Peter and Paul, that he reflects the
atmosphere of second-century ecclesiasticism and takes inter
est in the political side of the Roman Empire. It must be con
fessed that these are not very weighty or very serious argu
ments. It is by no means certain that he used Paul s Epistles,
but what if he did? Certainly the political outlook of the
Acts is precisely that of Paul s Epistles (Headlam, Hastings s
D. B., art. "Acts"), but surely that argues for the early date.
As to Josephus, that is more important and will call for dis
cussion a bit later. But that can be true and the author still
be Luke. The possible use of Josephus bears on the date of
the Acts, not on the Lukan authorship. "In this event he
must have been about seventy when he wrote Acts, which is

^Philology of the Gospels, pp. 145 f. z EinL,* 1892, p. 405.

DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 31

by no means impossible or even improbable." 1 Ramsay 2
pointedly says: "We must face the facts boldly. If Luke
wrote Acts his narrative must agree in a striking and convinc
ing way with Paul s: they must confirm, explain and complete
one another." The writings of both stand that test. The
genuineness of nearly all of the Pauline Epistles is now admitted
by the mass of modern scholars. The Lukan authorship of the
Gospel and the Acts now carries the weight of modern opinion.
Ramsay s researches show in innumerable ways how Luke s
knowledge of first-century details can only be explained on the
view that he was a contemporary of these events. The fre
quent changes in the Roman provinces (from imperial to sen
atorial, and vice versa) make pitfalls for the unwary. Luke
steps with sure tread because he was on the ground and knew
the facts. He has been triumphantly vindicated, as will be
shown in future chapters.

2. The Date of the Acts. The book was written after the
Gospel (Acts 1:1) and before Luke s death. Lightfoot de
clined to discuss the date of the Acts in his article on the
Acts. 3 Plummer 4 states that Lightfoot regarded the question
of the date of Acts as dependent on the date of Luke. So it is
in so far as determining the date before which the Acts can
be located. But it is equally true that the date of the Acts
determines the time beyond which the Gospel cannot go.
Lake 5 puts the case fairly: "The evidence for the date is very
meagre. If the Lucan authorship be accepted, any date
before the last events chronicled, i. e., a short time before
A. D. 100, is possible." Both books must come within the
lifetime of Luke. There is no way to tell how much time
elapsed between the two books. Probably it was not long.
On the whole, it is simplest to take up the Acts first. There
are three dates that are at present argued for both the Gospel
and the Acts as they hang together. But we shall confine the
argument here to the Acts.

(a) A. D. 94 to 100. Those who hold to this date for Acts,
do so on the theory that Luke made use of Josephus. As
already stated, Luke need not have been more than seventy

1 Moffatt, Intr. to Lit. of the N. T., p. 312.

*St. Paul the Traveller, p. 14. 3 Smith s D. R, 2 pp. 25-43.

4 Comm., p. xxix.

6 Hastings s Did. of Ap. Ch., article "Acts."

32 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

at the end of the century, if a young man when he first became
associated with Paul. Burkitt 1 and Peake 2 accept the view
that Luke drew on the writings of Josephus. Stanton 3 con
cludes that Luke made use of the Jewish War, but not the
rest of the works of Josephus. If this is true, the late date is .
not necessary. The date of the Antiquities is 94 A. D. It
may be said at once that most of the arguments employed to
prove that Luke knew the writings of Josephus are utterly in
conclusive. Some of the arguments of Clemen 4 and Krenkel 5
are criticised sharply by Belser 6 and Plummer, 7 who calls them
"childish." By like arguments of common Greek words one
may show that Luke was influenced by Thucydides. Some of
the likenesses are due to the use of the Septuagint by both
Luke and Josephus. The only matter of serious import is the
fact that both Josephus (Ant. XX., v. 1 f.) and Luke (Acts,
5: 36 f.) speak of Theudas and Judas the Galilean in this order
as if Theudas lived before Judas. The two are mentioned in
Josephus some twenty lines apart. The name Theudas is a
common one. It is quite possible that another man is meant,
as in the case of the tetrarch Lysanias in Luke 3:1. The dis
crepancy only exists in case the same man is meant. Even
then it is the discrepancy of Gamaliel and not of Luke, unless
Luke wrote the speech. There are more divergences than like
nesses in the two reports that suggest independent narratives,
as in the two reports of the death of Herod Agrippa I. Lake 8
considers the use of Josephus by Luke too doubtful to be de
cisive: "The decennium 90-100 seems, on the whole, the most
probable, but demonstrative proof is lacking." M. Jones 9
thinks these inferences about the use of Josephus too "pre
carious" to be conclusive. Plummer 10 holds this hypothesis
"highly improbable." "Moreover, where the statements of
either can be tested, it is Luke who is commonly found to be ac
curate, whereas Josephus is often convicted of exaggeration and

1 The Gospel History and Its Transmission, ch. iv.

2 Introduction to the N. T., p. 135.

3 The Gospels as Historical Documents, part II, pp. 263-273.

4 Die Chronologic der paulin. Brief e (1893).
6 Josephus und Lukas (1894).

6 Theol. Quartalschrift, Tubingen (1895, 1896).

7 Comm., p. xxx. 8 Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Ch., article "Acts."

9 New Testament in the Twentieth Century, p. 255.

10 Comm. } p. xxix.

DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 33

error." The supposed use of Josephus by Luke cannot, there
fore, be held to be certain or, as I think, even probable. We
must look elsewhere for decisive evidence on this subject.
Harnack (Luke the Physician, p. 24, n. 2) says: "The time of
Josephus need not be taken into consideration; for the theory
that the author of the Acts had read that historian is quite
baseless."

Besides, there are strong arguments against the date 94-100,
which Plummer 1 summarizes forcibly. The use of "the
Christ" 2 as the Messiah instead of a proper name Christ
would be hard to explain. The use of "the Lord" for Jesus,
not in Matthew or in Mark save in the disputed appendix,
would have been more common. Besides, would Luke have
kept 21:32 if written after "this generation" had passed
away? The historical atmosphere of Acts is not that of
95-135 A. D. Besides, what could have induced a com
panion of Paul to remain quiet so long after his death ? These
arguments are very strong.

(6) A. D. 70-80. The majority of modern critics date the
Acts here. But nothing of a very positive nature can be
adduced for this date. Ramsay 3 thinks that he has found "a
clew, though in itself an uncertain one, to suggest the date
when Luke was at work" on the Acts. The reign of Titus was
reckoned from association with his father on July 1, A. D. 71.
Hence, Ramsay argues, Luke wrote the Gospel (and the Acts)
about that time, because he speaks of the reign of Tiberius
(Luke 3 : 1-2) in the fifteenth year, reckoning from A. D. 12,
when Tiberius was associated with Augustus in the empire.
But this is too precarious an argument for so solid a conclu
sion. The chief argument relied upon for the date shortly
after A. D. 70 is Luke 21 : 20. It is argued by Sanday, B. Weiss
and others that Luke here changes the language of Daniel 9 : 27
in Mark 13: 14 and Matt. 24: 15 ("the abomination of deso
lation") to the definite statement about Jerusalem being "en
compassed with armies." It is held to be a vaticinium post
ewntum. The omission of scripture quotation makes it neces
sary also to omit the explanatory notes: "Let him that readeth

1 Comm., pp. xxx, xxxi.

2 & xptcrrf?. Cf. Luke 2:26; 3:15; 4:41; 9:20; 20:41; 22:35, 39;
24 : 26, 46.
3 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 387.

34 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

understand/ But the mention of armies is very vague.
Furneaux 1 is very positive and says that "the Third Gospel
cannot have been written earlier than A. D. 70, the year of the
destruction of Jerusalem. Hence, the Acts cannot have been
written much before A. D. 75." But such a vigorous pronounce
ment carries little weight. "Savonarola foretold, as early as
A. D. 1496, the capture of Rome, which happened in 1527,
and those sermons of 1496 were printed in 1497." 2 Surely
Jesus could foretell as much as Savonarola, and Luke cannot be
charged with writing this prophecy after the destruction of
Jerusalem. Lake, 3 who holds to the late date, as we have
seen, sees very little in the idea that the Gospel of Luke must
be after the destruction of Jerusalem: "It is doubtful if there
are really any satisfactory proofs that this was the case."
Torrey (Composition and Date of Acts, p. 70) holds that all the
items in Luke s report of the prediction occur in Old Testament
prophecies and denies that the passage in Luke can be called a
vaticinium ex ewntu. Plummer 4 makes much of the idea that
the date A. D. 70-80 allows time for the "many" to draw up
narratives about Christ, but there was time enough between
A. D. 30 and 55 for that. Harnack 5 had already given up this
argument in his Acts of the Apostles. He had himself 6 in 1897
argued for A. D. 78 as the earliest possible date for Acts. Now
in 1909 he writes "to warn critics against a too hasty closing
of the chronological question." He concludes: 7 "Therefore,
for the present, we must be content to say: St. Luke wrote at
the time of Titus or in the earlier years of Domitian, but per
haps even so early as the beginning of the seventh decade of
the first century." So astonishing a surrender on the part of
Harnack created consternation among many critics. It was
clear that the matter could not rest thus.

(c) About A. D. 63. The early date for the Acts has always
nad able advpcates. Men like Alford, Blass, Ebrard, Farrar,
Gloag, Godet, Headlam, Keil, Lange, Lumby, Maclean,
Oesterzee, Resch, Schaff, Tholuck, Wieseler, have reasoned that
Luke closes the Acts as he does and when he does for the simple

1 Comm., p. x. 2 Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 42.

3 Hastings s Dictionary of Ap. Ch., art. "Acts."

4 Comm., p. xxxi. 5 Engl. tr., 1909, p. 291.
Chronologic der alt-christl Litt. /., pp. 246-250, 718.

7 Acts of the Apostles, p. 297.

DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 35

reason that events have proceeded no farther with Paul. " In
investigating the date of a book, the first step is to look for the
latest event mentioned." 1 And yet after A. D. 63 some of
the most stirring events in Christian history occurred, like the
burning of Rome in A. D. 64 with the persecution of Christians
which is reflected in 1 Peter, the martyrdom of Peter and Paul,
and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A. D. 70.
How are we to explain the absence of any allusion to these
great events? There are three ways of doing so. One is the
view already stated. Rackham 2 puts the argument clearly.
It seems incredible that Luke should betray no knowledge of
Paul s death if he had known it. That would be the natural
climax to the Acts. The martyrdom of Stephen and of James
would have been crowned with that of Paul. Besides, Acts is
a joyful book and Paul remains full of cheer to the very end.
If Luke knew that Paul went back to Ephesus, would he have
left the prediction in Acts 20 : 25 that he did not expect to see
their faces again? Besides, in the Acts the attitude of Rome
toward Christianity is still undecided, whereas after A. D. 64
it became openly hostile. It was clear that Harnack must
continue his studies on the date of Acts. This he does in his
Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (tr. 1911). In 1909
he pleads for fresh investigation. After an exhaustive survey
of the whole question, he says: 3 "We are accordingly left with
the result: that the concluding verses of the Acts of the Apos
tles, taken in conjunction with the absence of any reference
in the book to the result of the trial of St. Paul and to his
martyrdom, make it in the highest degree probable that the
work was written at a time when St. Paul s trial in Rome had
not yet come to an end." With this conclusion I heartily
agree and I had long held and taught it before Harnack reached
it. Maclean 4 considers this view " the more probable." Blass, 5
indeed, would place the Acts as early as A. D. 59.

Lake 6 says that all this important argument is weakened by
two other possibilities. One is that Luke contemplated a
third volume in which he meant to go on with the story of Paul,

Rackham, Acts, p. 1. 2 Ibid., pp. li ff.

3 Date of the Acts and Synoptic Gospels, p. 99.

4 Hastings s One Volume D. B., art. "Acts."

5 Philology of the Gospels, pp. 33 ff .

6 Hastings s Diet, of the Ap. Ch., art. "Acts,"

36 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

though, he adds, this theory is not very probable. Ramsay
argues for it, but it is a mistaken notion to press Luke s use of
"first" in Acts 1 : 1, as we have seen. The current Koine gives
no support for such an idea. The other consideration ad
vanced by Lake against the sudden and apparent abrupt end
ing of Acts is that Luke really implies that the case fell through
and that Paul was released by his mention of "two years." A
passage in Philo s in Flaccum tells of a certain Lambon who
was kept in prison for two years, which Philo calls the longest
period. The idea seems to be that, if the case did not come to
trial in two years, dismissal came as a matter of course. This
is by no means certain, but even if it is, it would still not prove
that Luke did not write the Acts just at the close of the period
when there was prospect of Paul s release. Rackham, like
Harnack, is impressed with the joyous and optimistic note of
the Acts.

Bartlet in his Apostolic Age and article on "Acts" in the
Standard Bible Dictionary argues that Luke closed the Acts
with Paul s arrival in Rome for artistic and literary reasons.
This event marked the grand consummation of the Gospel in
the early age. Paulus Romce apex evangelii. This natural
climax would be spoiled by the fruitless story of Paul s release,
journeys, arrest, trial and death. Certainly something can
be said for this interpretation. E. J. Goodspeed 1 presses this
argument against the force of Harnack s conclusion for the
early date of Acts, which "carries with it important conse
quences for early Christian literature." "If the subject of
Acts is the Rise and Progress of the Greek Mission, it has
reached in Paul at Rome a climax beyond which it could not
go." 2 "When Acts is written Paul is a hallowed memory,
and already the sects are beginning to appear." 3 Possibly so,
but one feels that all this is too subjective for Luke. He shows
literary skill and great ability as an historian, but he does not
write like a novelist for artistic effect by concealing important
facts. In the case of the Gospel he carries the story on to its
actual climax, the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. It is
hard to believe that, knowing of Paul s death, Luke avoided
mention of the subject for fear of spoiling his story. Believe
it who can. Headlam 4 notes that the arguments against the

1 The Expositor, London, May, 1919, p. 387. 2 Ibid., p. 388.

3 Ibid., p. 391. 4 Hastings s D. ., art. "Acts."

DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 37

arly view are not very strong, while it is the obvious way to
treat the close of Acts. Besides, if Luke wrote after the de
struction of Jerusalem, why did he not change "flee to the
mountain" in Luke 21 : 21 when the Christians fled to Fella?
On the whole, the early date has the best of it. We, therefore,
date the Acts about A. D. 63 and in Rome. Torrey 1 puts the
date for the supposed Aramaic Document (Acts 1-15) A. D. 50,
and the translation of it by Luke and the writing of Acts 16-28
not later than A. D. 64 and in Rome. It is needless to discuss
Ephesus, Corinth, and the other places alleged in place of Rome
as Luke s abode when he wrote the Acts.

3. The Date of the Gospel. Our conclusion concerning the
date of the Acts carries with it the early date of the Gospel.
We have seen that Lake admitted as much. "It has usually
been assumed that this (the date of the Lukan Gospel) must
be posterior to the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, but it is doubt
ful whether there are really any satisfactory proofs that this
was the case." 2 We have seen that there are no such proofs.
The date of the Gospel turns on that of the Acts. The earliest
evidence for the date of Luke s Gospel is Acts 1:1. Here Luke
definitely refers to the book. Harnack 3 states the matter suc
cinctly: "Hence, it is proved that it is altogether wrong to say
that the eschatological passages force us to the conclusion that
the Third Gospel was written after the year 70 A. D. And
since there are no other reasons for a later date, it follows
that the strong arguments, which favor the composition of the
Acts before 70 A. D., now also apply in their full force to the
Gospel of Luke, and it seems now to be established beyond question
that both books of this great historical work were written while St.
Paul was still alive" (italics Harnack s). I do not think that
Harnack has put the matter more strongly than the evidence
justifies. He expects that some critics will be slow to accept
so firm a conclusion after a century of turmoil and dispute.
The rapid conversion of Harnack to the early date is viewed
with suspicion by some as unscientific. Lake 4 admits that
"Harnack s powerful advocacy has turned the current of feel
ing in favor of the traditional view, but he has really dealt

1 Composition and Date of Acts, p. 67.
2 Hastings s Diet. Ap. Church, art. "Acts."

3 Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, p. 124.

4 Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Ch., art. "Luke."

38 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

adequately with only one side of the question and dismissed
the theological and (to a somewhat less extent) the historical
difficulty too easily." The theological argument strongly con
firms the early date, for the picture of Christ in the Gospel of
Luke is distinctly more primitive than that of Paul in the Epis
tles of the first Roman imprisonment (Philippians, Colossians,
Ephesians, Philemon), A. D. 61-63. Indeed, the same thing
is true of Acts, particularly of the first half of the book. The
historical question is dealt with in great detail by Ramsay in
his various books. It cannot be said that the proof here argues
strongly for 63 as against 75 A. D., but there is nothing that
is hostile to the 63 date. The historical argument is decidedly
against A. D. 95 to 100 A. D. Lake wishes to leave the ques
tion of the date sub judice for the present. Jones 1 gives a fair
resume of Harnack s arguments for A. D. 63, but still holds to
A. D. 75-80 as "on the whole more satisfactory." But the
facts brought out concerning A. D. 63 as the date for Acts will
meet with increasing acceptance from scholars, in my opinion.

If Luke wrote Acts while Paul was alive and in Rome, then
he wrote the Gospel either before that, while in Csesarea (two
years), or he finished it after reaching Rome, before he wrote
the Acts. Torrey 2 argues, naturally, that the Book of Acts was
an afterthought when Luke wrote the prologue to the Gospel.
But Chase 3 is positive that Luke had the Acts in mind and
meant the same prologue for both books. It matters little.
The extreme brevity of the address to Theophilus in Acts with
the reference to the prologue in the Gospel argues for a short
period between the two volumes. Torrey therefore suggests
A. D. 61 as the latest date for the Gospel. Moffatt 4 thinks it
unsafe to contend that nine or ten years should elapse between
the two books.

There remains only one further difficulty of importance in
the way of dating the Gospel of Luke so early as 59 or 60 in
Csesarea or 61 in Rome. It is certain that Luke used the
Gospel of Mark as one of his many sources for his Gospel.
Synoptic criticism has proved this as clearly as seems possible. 5

1 N. T. in Twentieth Century, p. 260.

2 Composition and Date of Acts, p. 68.

3 Credibility of the Acts, p. 16. 4 Intr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 313.

5 See Sanday et alii, Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem (1911); Haw
kins, Horce Synoptica? (1911); Robertson, Studies in Mark s Gospel (1919).

DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 39

Can the Gospel of Mark be dated before A. D. 59? Jones 1
is convinced that Mark s Gospel does not stand in the way.
Edmundson 2 holds that Luke had an earlier recension of Mark
"for the use of Greek-speaking converts in Judea." But this
hypothesis is by no means necessary. Luke made use of the
Logia of Jesus (Q) as did Matthew, but no trouble arises from
this source. It probably belongs to the period before 50 A. D.
I have discussed the date of Mark s Gospel at some length in
my Studies in Mark s Gospel and need not repeat the arguments
here. Tradition and internal evidence combine to show that
Mark wrote the Gospel while Peter was still alive. There is
good ground for thinking that Mark 3 was in existence by
A. D. 50. Both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of
Luke make use of Mark s Gospel. We know from Col. 4 : 10, 14
that Mark and Luke were with Paul in Rome. Harnack 4
finds that the latest recension of Mark s Gospel must come in
"the sixth decade of the first century at the latest." It is
therefore quite possible that Luke either in Csesarea or in
Rome saw a copy of Mark s Gospel. Nolloth 5 places the
Gospel of Luke 57 or 58 A. D.

4. The Historical Worth of the Lukan Writings. The remain
der of the present volume is an investigation of the reliability
of Luke as a historian and the credibility of his works. The
evidence must be discussed in detail. The proof will be cumu
lative and varied. But at this stage of the discussion the point
can be justly made that the early date of both Gospel and
Acts gives a strong presumption in favor of the historical value
of the books. There was less time for legends to grow. The
author was nearer to his sources of information. The historian
who is a near contemporary is not always able to give a true
and large perspective for his facts, though Thucydides did it.
But, at any rate, since Luke the physician, the friend of Paul,
wrote these two books, they cannot be thrown aside as second-
century romances written to deify Jesus and to idealize Peter
and Paul. 6 The writer is so close to the facts of which he

1 N. T. in the Twentieth Century, p. 258.

2 The Church in Rome During the First Century, p. 67, n. 4.

3 Nolloth, The Rise of the Christian Religion, 1917, p. 18.

4 The Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, p. 133. 6 Op. cit., p. 15.

6 The Tubingen view has been abandoned. Cf . Chase, Credibility of the
Acts, p. 9. Jiilicher (EinL, p. 355) still speaks of "a genuine core" in Acts
which is "overgrown with legendary accretions."

40 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

writes that he has to receive serious consideration to see if,
after all, he has not drawn his characters to the life.

Even Harnack 1 balks at the miraculous element in Luke s
Gospel and the Acts. He ranks Luke far above Josephus in
historical worth, 2 but his prejudice against anything super
natural explains his reluctance to rank Luke among the very
highest historians. "The book has now been restored to the
position of credit which is its rightful due. It is not only,
taken as a whole, a genuinely historical work, but even in the
majority of its details it is trustworthy." 3 That is all true,
but Harnack fails to appraise Luke s work as highly as it de
serves. But his witness is remarkable when one considers how
far Harnack has come.

But Ramsay has made the same journey, only he has been
longer coming and has come farther. Let him tell his own
story: 4 "I began with a mind unfavorable to it (the value of
the Acts), for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the
Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. . . .
It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the
narrative showed marvellous truth." The leaven worked in
Ramsay s mind as he kept up his researches in Asia Minor.
He came to the study of Luke and Paul from the side of classi
cal scholarship and the archaeology of the Grseco-Roman civili
zation. The whole drift of modern criticism is reflected in
Ramsay s own experience. "The question among modern
scholars now is with regard to Luke s credibility as a historian;
it is generally conceded that he wrote at a comparatively early
date, and had authorities of high character, even when he
himself was not an eye-witness. How far can we believe his
narrative? The present writer takes the view that Luke s
history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness." 5
This testimony of Ramsay is of the greatest value. Ramsay is
not infallible, but he is sincere and able, and relates with im
mense power his own conversion to the high estimate of Luke
as a historian. "The first and the essential quality of the
historian is truth." 6 "The more that I have studied the nar-

1 Cf. his "Primitive Legends of Christendom" in his Date of the Acts
and the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 136-162.

2 The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 203-229.

3 Ibid., p. 298. St. Paul the Traveller, p. 8.
6 The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 81. 6 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 4.

DATE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE ACTS 41

rative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year
about Greco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions and
organizations in those provinces, the more I admire and the
better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the border
land where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here. You
may press the words of Luke in a degree far beyond any other
historian s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hard
est treatment, provided always that the critic knows the sub
ject and does not go beyond the limits of science and justice." 1
That judgment will be found to be true if one looks at all the
facts with an open mind.

There is hardly need to say more, but for one thing. No
plea is made that Luke could not make any mistakes because
he was inspired. He himself makes no direct claim to inspira
tion. That is a matter of opinion. We know very little about
the nature of inspiration. It is a fact as life is a fact, but we
understand neither one. The writings of Luke are just as
much inspired after research has confirmed them as they were
before; no more, no less. Luke is entitled to be trusted like
any other ancient historian. It is not necessary to show that
he never made a mistake or to be able to solve every difficulty
raised by his writings in order to form an intelligent opinion
about the value of his works. 2 Ramsay 3 puts the case justly:
"Our hypothesis is that Acts was written by a great historian,
a writer who set himself the task to record the facts as they
occurred, a strong partisan indeed, but raised above partiality
by his perfect confidence that he had only to describe the facts
as they occurred, in order to make the truth of Christianity
and the honor of Paul apparent." Ramsay, after a lifetime of
research, ranks Luke as the greatest of all historians, ancient
or modern. The Gospel stands the same test that the Acts
has undergone. It is not only the most beautiful book in the
world, but it is written with the utmost care and skill. Luke
himself tells us his methods of work upon this book, methods
that he undoubtedly applied also to his work upon the Acts.
We are now in a position to let Luke speak for himself concern
ing his habits and motives as a historian.

1 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 89.

2 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 16. * Ibid., p. 14.

CHAPTER IV

LUKE S METHOD OF RESEARCH 1
"It seemed good to me also" (Luke 1 : 3)

1. The Habits of a Literary Man. Luke alone has a literary
prologue to his Gospel (1 : 1-4) that answers also for the Acts,
whether he meant it to do so at the time or not. It is imma
terial whether or not Luke consciously imitated the prefaces
of Herodotus, Thucydides and Polybius, or that of Dioscorides,
the famous medical writer on plants (materia medico), and of
Hippocrates. There are verbal parallels to one or all of them
and Luke s does not suffer by comparison with any one of them.
The preface of Luke s Gospel " is modelled on the conventional
lines of ancient literature," 2 as is natural for one who under
takes to write a history. "Luke s method is historical, but
his object, like that of John (20 : 31), is religious." 3 The point
to note here is that it is "Luke s intention to write history,
and not polemical or apologetic treatises." 4 Hence he reveals
his method of work in these opening verses of the Gospel in a
clear manner. All that we really know about the composition
of early narratives concerning the life of Christ we obtain from
these verses. 5 Their value is therefore inestimable. With
utter frankness Luke lays bare his literary plan, method and
spirit. "Great historians are the rarest of writers." 6 Ram
say undertakes to show that Luke measures up to the standard
of Thucydides, and in some respects surpasses him. It is
important, therefore, to see what Luke has to say about him
self and his habits of work.

The preface is not only literary in structure and vocabulary,
but it is also periodic in form. It is written in the grand style.
Blass 7 would call it Atticistic, but it is enough to say that it is
in the literary Koine. The sentence 8 is composed of six mem-

1 The Biblical Review, April, 1920.

2 Moffatt, Intr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 263. Ibid.
4 Plummer, Comm. on Luke, p. xxxvi.

6 Plummer, Comm. on Luke, p. 2.

6 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 3.

7 Philology of the Gospels, p. 9. 8 Ibid., p. 10.

LUKE S METHOD OF RESEARCH 43

bers, three in the protasis and three in the apodosis, and they
correspond with each other in the style of the finished literary
writer. The language is ornate rather than colloquial. But,
withal, it is precise and there is not any display of rhetoric.
There is literary skill beyond a doubt, that no one but a man
of real culture can show. Luke nowhere else in his writings
employs just this style, because elsewhere he follows more or
less closely his sources.

But we are fortunate in this glimpse of the historian in his
study. It is not hard to see the pile of notes of conversation
or of investigation lying near at hand. Here are papyri rolls
of previous monographs on various phases of the life of Christ.
Luke himself sits by his own small desk with his own roll
spread out before him. He writes after he has gotten ready to
write and with all available data at hand. The papyri dis
covered in Egypt 1 help us to reproduce the workshop of Luke,
who proved to be the greatest of all historians, by the skill
that he displayed in the use of his materials. Renan 2 rightly
terms the Gospel of Luke "the most literary of the Gospels,"
as well as the most beautiful book in the world. Sanday 3 says:
"St. Luke has more literary ambition than his fellows." The
prologue has the aim of an educated man with scientific train
ing and habits. "Something of the scholar s exactness is
included in the ideal of Luke." 4 The writer undoubtedly
employs the same literary methods for the Acts that he men
tions in the preface to the Gospel. 5

Luke has taken great pains to make himself understood in
his prologue and has given a great deal of valuable information

1 Not all students have access to the great printed collections of papyri
like the Amherst Papyri by Grenfell and Hunt (P. Amh.), the JZgyptische
Urkunden aus den Kceniglichen Museen zu Berlin (B. G. U.), Greek Papyri
in the British Museum (P. Brit. Mus.), Fayum Towns and their Papyri by
Grenfell and Hunt and Hogarth (P. Fay.), the Hibeh Papyri by Grenfell
and Hunt (P. Hib.), the Oxyrhynchus Papyri by Grenfell and Hunt
(P. Oxy.). There are convenient handbooks that give valuable informa
tion concerning the papyri like Milligan s Greek Papyri, Deissmann s Bible
Studies and his Light from the Ancient East, Milligan s New Testament
Documents, Cobern s The New Archaeological Discoveries and Their Bear
ing upon the New Testament, Souter s Pocket Lexicon of the Greek New
Testament, and in particular Moulton and Milligan s Vocabulary of the New
Testament. Abbott-Smith s Manual Lexicon of the Greek N. T. is in press.

2 Les Evangiks, chap. XIII. 3 Book by Book, p. 401.
4 Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 217. 6 Furneaux, Acts, p. 1.

44 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

in condensed form, but he has been seriously misunderstood at
several points as will be shown. 1 Luke knows that what he
says must be trustworthy, but he is entitled to be judged by
what he undertook to do, not by our theories of what he ought
to have done. "It is necessary to study every historian s
method, and not to judge him according to whether or not he
uses our methods." 2 So then we must study Luke s method,
not that of the modern critic of Luke. Let Luke himself speak
to us. What does he say of his own qualifications for his great
task?

2. Stimulated by the Work of Others. "Forasmuch as many
have taken in hand to draw up a narrative ... it seemed
good to me also." The reason is stated in a formal manner,
but with perfect directness. The grammatical construction 3 is
like that in Acts 15: 24, 25: "Forasmuch as we have heard . . .
it seemed good unto us." How "many" had made such
"attempts"? No one knows, but "this preface gives a lively
picture of the intense, universal interest felt by the early
Church in the story of the Lord Jesus: Apostles constantly tell
ing what they had seen and heard; many of their hearers tak
ing notes of what they said for the benefit of themselves and
others: through these gospelets acquaintance with the evan
gelic history circulating among believers, creating a thirst for
more and yet more; imposing on such a man as Luke the task
of preparing a Gospel as full, correct and well-arranged as pos
sible through the use of all available means previous writings
or oral testimony of surviving witnesses." 4 Cicero employed
shorthand in the trial of Catiline and shorthand was much in
vogue in the first century A. D. Salmon 5 thinks that the
Logia of Jesus (Q) was written down in notes during the life of
Jesus. The discovery of Sayings of Jesus in the Oxyrhynchus
Papyri illustrates how this was done.

There is no real objection to thinking of a considerable num
ber of fragmentary reports of the life and words of Jesus.

1 Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 7.

2 Ramsay, St. Paid the Traveller, p. 17.

3 Plummer, Comm., p. 2. The word Ixst^xep (iml, 8^, irfp) is common in
ancient Greek and the Lxx, but not elsewhere in the N. T. In Acts 15 : 24
it is exetB^.

4 Bruce, Expositors 1 Greek Test., on Luke 1:4.

5 Human Element in the Gospels, p. 274. So Ramsay, The Expositor, May,
1907.

LUKE S METHOD OF RESEARCH 45

Only the so-called apocryphal Gospels are ruled out because
they belong to a much later time. "Probably all the docu
ments here alluded to were driven out of existence by the
manifest superiority of the four canonical Gospels." So Plum-
mer 1 argues, unless, forsooth, Luke included Mark s Gospel and
the Logia of Matthew in the list, as now seems certain. The
Logia of Matthew is largely preserved by the Gospel of Matthew
and the Gospel of Luke. Mark s Gospel, used by both Matthew
and Luke, has survived intact save for the ending. But the
other sources have disappeared.

Does Luke mean to disparage the other attempts at writing
accounts of Jesus? He certainly does not mean censure since
he brackets himself, "me also," with the other writers. 2 The
word 3 for "attempted" literally means "to take in hand, to
undertake," and does not of itself imply failure or error. There
is nothing hi this context to suggest that previous efforts were
heretical or unreliable. Luke does imply that they were in
complete and so inadequate for the needs of Theophilus and
for others like him. Theophilus had received instruction 4 of a
more or less formal nature, like a catechumen, concerning
Jesus, but Luke wishes him to have a fuller and more compre
hensive story. Bruce 5 suggests that there was a widespread
impulse to preserve in writing the evangelic memorabilia that
stimulated Luke to do likewise. His active mind was seized
with the desire to make a more adequate and orderly presenta
tion of the words and deeds of Jesus while it was still possible
to do so. In doing this great service he was conscious of meet
ing a widespread demand, the author s usual sense of filling a
long-felt want, that sometimes is true, though publishers can
not always know it.

There was, therefore, "extensive activity in the production
of rudimentary gospels," Bruce 6 argues. It was a time of lit
erary activity concerning Jesus. Great literature is usually
produced under the incentive of some great impulse or excite
ment, like love, war, discovery. New ideas spur the mind to
fresh effort. The years at Ca3sarea offered Luke an oppor
tunity for new research and for first-hand knowledge that set
his soul aflame. Luke, instead of being deterred by the mul-

1 Comm., p. 2. 2 Plummer, Comm., p. 2.

3 eicexstooav. 4 xa-njx^?, 1 : 4.

6 On Luke 1:1. Ibid.

46 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

tiplicity of efforts, was the rather incited to one more attempt
on a more ambitious scale, one that would conserve the best
in all of them and thus give a richer and a more exact portrayal
of Christ than had yet been drawn. That he accomplished
this purpose is plain in respect to Mark s Gospel, which has
fortunately survived. It seems true, also, of the Logia (Q).
It was all the more true of the others that have perished pre
cisely because Luke did his work so well.

It is certain that Luke is not hostile to the Twelve in the
writing of his Gospel. The book itself refutes that idea. 1 It
is open to him to improve upon the words of others if he can.
It is certain, also, that though Luke is the friend and follower
of Paul, he is not a narrow partisan of Paul. He cannot in the
Acts be accused of distorting history in the interest of Paul or
of Peter or of promoting a reconciliation between them. 2 In
spite of the fact that Paul is Luke s hero in the Acts, Ramsay 3
can say: "It is rare to find a narrative so simple and so little
forced as that of Acts. It is a mere uncolored recital of the
important facts in the briefest possible terms." The same
thing is true of the Gospel. Luke is a master artist in his
grouping of the facts, but they are facts. "St. Luke remains
unconvicted of the charge of writing party pamphlets under
the cover of fictitious history."

3. A Contemporary of the Events, but a Participant in None
Save Part of the Acts. In the "we" sections of Acts Luke was
an eye-witness and a fellow-worker. But in the rest of the Acts
and all of the Gospel he has to rely upon others for his informa
tion. This is the natural implication of his language about the
Gospel. "Eye-witnesses and ministers of the word have de
livered unto us" the story of "the things that have been fulfilled
among us." The "us" here, occurring twice, is clearly not the
literary plural, which Paul sometimes employs, but " among us
Christians," "to us Christians." "Christendom is the sphere
in which these facts have had their accomplishment." 4 The
use of "delivered" 5 shows that some time has elapsed since
the events took place. Plummer 6 says: "If these things were

1 Plummer, Comm., p. xxxvi.

2 Moffatt, Intr. to the Lit. of N. T., pp. 301-2.

3 Ramsay, St. Paul the Travelkr, p. 20.

4 Plummer, Comm., p. 3.

* -jcapiSoaav. Cf . TOcp&Soatq for tradition. 6 Ibid.

LUKE S METHOD OF RESEARCH 47

handed down to Luke, then he was not contemporary with
them." Not in the strictest sense, to be sure, and yet, if Luke
was only forty years old in A. D. 60, he was ten years old in
A. D. 30, old enough to hear echoes of what was going on in
Palestine if he was within reach. He was more likely fifty
than forty. Luke comes in between the first generation of
eye-witnesses and the second generation, whose lives come
wholly after the great era of the life of Christ on earth. For
the life of Paul he is both contemporary with all and partici
pant in much of it.

But he looks backward quite distinctly upon the story of
Jesus "concerning those matters which have been fulfilled
among us." The perfect tense 1 emphasizes the idea that the
story has been preserved as well as finished. It is not clear
what the sonorous verb means. Eusebius takes it in the sense
of "convince," as Paul does in Rom. 14:5; Col. 4: 12. But
Paul uses it of persons, not of things. Others take the word
in the sense of "believe," "surely believed" (A. V.), following
Tyndale, but that hardly seems suitable. Others make it
"fully proved." Bruce 2 suggests "fulness of knowledge," but
that is a bit strained. The natural way is to take it in the
sense of "fulfil," "complete" as in II Tim. 4:5, 17. 3 This is
Jerome s translation "completes surd" Luke writes after the
close of Christ s earthly ministry and yet it is not in the dim
past.

If Luke is writing in Csesarea, he includes himself naturally
among the "us." He is in the midst of the atmosphere of the
life of Jesus, At every turn he finds fresh reminders of word
and deed of Jesus. The Christian community in Judea still
recall the wonderful words of the matchless teacher. 4 He could
not be insensible to his environment. Though a Greek of An-
tioch, let us say, yet he was now a Christian, and everything
that concerned Jesus interested him. Through the centuries
since men have made pilgrimages to Palestine to get the proper
orientation for the study of the life of Christ. Luke had time
enough to gratify his eagerness for details and his scholarly
desire for accuracy. He had come to Christ from the heathen
fold and had looked upon Christianity as a great moral and

v. 2 Cowim., p. 458.

3 LikeTXTj P 6to(Act8l9:21).

Philology of the Gospels, p. 14.

48 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

spiritual revolution. It is difficult for a contemporary to get
the right perspective. But Luke is a man of ability, culture
and wide sympathy. He has a large horizon and draws his
picture upon a large canvas. He knows that he is discussing
the life story of the Man of the Ages. It is important that he
be sure of his facts.

4. Talks with Eye-witnesses. One would feel sure that Luke
would make it his business while in Palestine to seek interviews
with important persons who could add bits of color to his nar
rative about Christ, if he had any idea of writing the story of
Jesus. He would listen to those talk who saw and heard Jesus.
But we are not left to conjecture. These "eye-witnesses" 1
were primary authorities and spoke from personal experience
and knowledge. They saw with their own eyes and gave their
own interpretations of what took place. People would be
eager to tell what they knew of this or that incident, whether
they knew of Luke s purpose or not. A few questions would
draw out much information which Luke would be quick to jot
down. But the public preaching of the word consisted largely
in the recital of the great events in the life and death of Jesus,
as we can see from the sermons of Peter and Paul in the Acts.
Luke had only to make notes as he listened to these " ministers
of the word," 2 many of whom were also eye-witnesses, to add
to his store of oral testimony.

They not only had personal experience, but they had also
practical experience of the power of the preached word on
human lives. 3 Many of them had followed Christ from the
start and were thus able to speak with authority. They knew
the outstanding facts connected with the ministry of Christ
from the beginning. Some of them may have known the still
earlier details of the childhood, though it is almost certain
that the preaching of the time began with the ministry of
Jesus (Acts 10: 36-43). Luke later (Acts 1 : 1) explains that
his Gospel treated "all that Jesus began to do and to teach."

In II Peter 1 : 16 we have !ic6xrac for the eager beholders
of the majestic glory on the mount of transfiguration. Cf. eicoirre&ovTeg
in I Pet. 2 : 12.

2 fciajpikat TOU X6You. It is hardly likely that Luke here employs X6yo?
in the Johannine sense of the personal Word. These "under-rowers" had
much to tell that was worth while. Cf. Luke 4 : 20; Acts 13 : 5.

3 Plummer, Comm., p. 3.

LUKE S METHOD OF RESEARCH 49

The Jews lay great store by oral witness. Books were ex
pensive and scarce in spite of the remark in Ecclesiastes about
the making of so many books. People had to rely largely on
the memory for the retention of knowledge. The Jews them
selves developed a vast system of oral law in elucidation of the
written law, and finally came to think more of it than they did
of the Mosaic law. Westcott and A. Wright look to the oral
teaching as the main, if not tjie only, source of the gospels.
In this they are not sustained by modern research. But we
must not overlook the fact that, when Luke wrote his Gospel,
he had easy access to eye-witnesses whose testimony was of
inestimable value. He himself speaks (Acts 21:16) of "one
Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we should
lodge." There were many more. Philip and his four daugh
ters were in Csesarea, and had but recently entertained Paul
and his party (Acts 21 : 8 f.). James, the brother of the Lord,
and all the elders met Paul and Luke in Jerusalem (21 : 18).
Harnack (Luke the Physician, p. 122) thinks that Luke did
not at this time know the Twelve Apostles. He certainly
knew Mark and his mother Mary, whose home was the centre
of the Christian life in Jerusalem (Acts 12 : 12). It is possible
that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was still alive. She may have
lived in Jerusalem with James, now that he is a firm believer
and leader. But, if Mary was no longer living, James may
have had her narrative of the great events that she alone knew.
Each one would have his own story to tell. Each would sup
plement the other. The true historian knows how to prize
and to weigh oral testimony. That Luke did not follow old
wives fables and foolish legends is proven by a comparison of
his books with the apocryphal lives of Jesus.

5. Examination of Documents. Luke expressly says that
"many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative." It is not
perfectly clear what Luke means by "draw up a narrative." l
The word for "narrative" "implies more than mere notes or
anecdotes." 2 It is a carrying through a connected story to
the end (cf. Sirach, 6 : 35; II Mac. 2 : 32). Luke draws a dis
tinction between the oral testimony of eye-witnesses in verse 2
and the written documents in verse I. 3 Both verb and sub
stantive occur here alone in the New Testament. The verb is

1 dcvaT&lt;4&lt;xo0ai Ziiifriaiv. 3 Plummer, Comm.. p. 3.

3 Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 16.

50 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

a rare one in Greek literature. 1 In both instances the notion
of repetition or practice is present. Plutarch has an elephant
practising by moonlight from memory what his keeper taught
him. Irenseus describes Ezra as restoring from memory the
words of the prophets. Blass, 2 therefore, plausibly argues that
Luke s meaning must be this: "Since many writers have under
taken to restore from memory a narrative of the things which
have come to pass among us." The oral tradition was liable
to pass into oblivion unless it were written down while still a
living memory. This is probably the true idea.

It may well be that some of the "many" themselves had
access to written documents. Luke uses a general expression.
But he undoubtedly means to affirm that he had access to a
number of written documents concerning the life of Jesus.
This statement, as already shown, effectually disposes of the
idea that our Gospels relied entirely upon oral testimony. But
the next verse shows plainly that Luke employed oral testi
mony, also. He made use of both kinds of testimony, as any
sensible man in his position would do. He has before him,
as he writes, some of these narratives which have incited him
to his task.

But it is not enough to be in possession of priceless historical
treasures, absolutely essential as this fact is for all historical
research. The true historian cannot and dare not "invent"
his facts save in the etymological sense of that word. He must
find his facts before he writes. Research is the first step, long
and patient gathering of the data. I may be excused a per
sonal word at this point. My first book, The Life and Letters
of John A. Broadus (1901), was written after reading some
twenty-five thousand letters, besides other biographical mate
rial. Before anything else was done, these letters had to be
read, all of them. A selection of all that threw light upon the
life of Broadus was made and placed in chronological order.
This was the first step, but it was not all. What was the rela
tive value and importance of this varied assortment of material ?

6. Sifting the Evidence. We can picture Luke in his study
with his papers piled around him, papyrus rolls and scraps at

1 Plutarch (De Soil Animal xii), Irenseus (III, 21 : 2), and v. 1 in Eccles.
2 : 20.

2 Phil of the Gospels, p. 15. The Latin and English versions vary greatly
in the translation of this word.

LUKE S METHOD OF RESEARCH 51

every turn. But he is not yet ready to write his book. He
himself tells what his next step was. He only began to write
after "having traced the course of all things accurately from
the first." 1 Eusebius 2 takes "all" as masculine, a reference
to the eye-witnesses and ministers. Epiphanius 3 expressly says
that Luke followed closely the eye-witnesses and ministers of
the word. This is the literal meaning of the verb, following
closely by one s side. Certainly Luke was not a constant fol
lower of the Twelve from the beginning or of other eye-witnesses
of Christ, though he probably knew some of them. Besides,
this literal sense of this compound verb occurs nowhere else in
the New Testament. "But Polybius and other Hellenistic
authors employ the verb in the sense of studying, and there
can be no doubt that Luke s use is the same." 4 Luke means
that he had instituted a process of research in his inquiries con
cerning the life of Christ that covered "all things." It was,
therefore, a thorough and careful investigation that began at
the beginning, "from the first," 5 meaning with the birth of
John the Baptist, as the sequel shows. "He has begun at the
beginning, and he has investigated everything." 6 Bruce 7
thinks that Luke made this research "long antecedent to the
formation of his plan." The tense of the verb is perfect and
naturally bears that meaning, if by "plan" is meant the out
line of the Gospel, not the purpose to write it. The idea of
Luke seems to be that, having decided to write another and a
fuller narrative than those in existence, he first made an inves
tigation of all the available material that he could lay his hands
upon.

But he adds one other word 8 that is quite pertinent. He
has done it "accurately." There is no idle boast in these three
qualifications for his task. 9 In a straightforward way Luke
reveals his literary method. He has aimed at full research
and accurate use of his material. He has not dumped it all
out in anecdotal form with no appraisement of its value. He

SvtoOsv iraacv dtxpcpwq. Cf. Demosthenes, De Corona, ch.
LIII, 344 (p. 285) icapTjxoXouOTjxiTa, rot? -jcpdcyixaatv l dcpxTJ?.
2 III, 24, 15. So the Syrian Translation. 3 Ag. Her., 51, 7.
4 Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 18.
6 a principio, the Vulgate has it.

6 Plummer, Comrn., p. 4. 7 Comrn., p. 459.

8 dxpipd&gt;&lt;;. Plummer, Comm., p. 4.

52 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

has weighed the worth of the information before he told it.
He has tried to tell it as it happened. Accurate writing can
only follow accurate investigation. In a word, Luke has sifted
the evidence and has given us the wheat, not the chaff. This
is a necessary task for the historian if he is to be more than a
mere romancer.. Even Harnack, 1 though championing the
Lukan authorship of Gospel and Acts, is still skeptical about
his use of his authorities. "He certainly believes himself to
be an historian (see the prologue) and so he is; but his powers
are limited, for he adopts an attitude toward his authorities
which is as distinctly uncritical as that which he adopts towards
his own experiences, if these admit of a miraculous interpreta
tion." Harnack here charges Luke with giving a miraculous
coloring to natural occurrences, when he was probably less dis
posed to do that than any man of his day. Luke distinctly
claims accurate research. It is quite compatible 2 with this
historical research and love for the truth that one should have
a sense of decorum and reverence. But Luke is not the man
to be charged with mere credulity without proof.

Luke does not say that the previous writers were not accu
rate. He only claims that he has covered the whole field and
has done it in harmony with the facts as he could ascertain
them after careful investigation. "And, in spite of the sever
est scrutiny, his accuracy can very rarely be impugned." ;
And the results of modern research confirm the justice of
Luke s claim wherever his works can be tested by new dis
coveries. This will be shown to be true in detail in succeeding
chapters in a most astonishing degree.

Ruskin 4 has a good word about misjudging a writer: "Be
sure that you go to the author to get at his meaning, not to
find yours and to judge it afterwards, if you think yourself
qualified to do so; but ascertain it first. And be sure, also, if
the author is worth anything, that you will not get at his
meaning all at once; nay, that at his whole meaning you will
not for a long time arrive in any wise." Luke, like any other
writer, is entitled to be credited with his own conception of
his task. He disclaims being a slipshod writer in the use of
his material. He has the Greek love for clarity and for truth.
He has the physician s skill in diagnosis that will stand him in

1 Luke the Physician, p. 123. 2 Bruce, Comm., p. 460.

8 Plummer, Comm., p. 4. 4 Sesame and Lilies, p. 15.

LUKE S METHOD OF RESEARCH 53

good atead as he dissects the data before him. He has traced
the story of Jesus from its origin with historical insight and
balanced judgment. He is already in possession of the evi
dence before he begins to write, as the perfect tense shows.
He does not jot down scraps of information in a haphazard
way as he gets hold of it. "Luke claims to have studied and
comprehended every event in its origin and development." l
He has gotten ready to write before he begins to write.

7. Orderly Arrangement. "To write unto thee in order/
Luke declared to be his purpose. What kind of "order" 2 is
it ? He does not say that it is chronological order, though one
naturally thinks of that. Papias 3 states that Mark s Gospel
was not "in order," but he employs a different word, 4 which
suggests military order. Luke s word occurs in Acts 11:4 con
cerning Peter s discourse in Jerusalem about the events in
Csesarea which Blass 5 interprets to be a full recital without
important omissions, a complete series rather than chrono
logical sequence. Ramsay 6 takes it to be "a rational order,
making things comprehensible, omitting nothing that is essen
tial for full and proper understanding." Such an order would
be chronological in its main features. That is true of the
great turning points in the Gospel, most assuredly. As a mat
ter of fact, both Luke and Matthew follow the general order
of Mark s Gospel. Matthew departs from it mainly in the
first part and Luke in the last part, where each introduces new
material on a large scale. Plummer 7 thinks that Luke gen
erally aims at chronological order and on the whole attains it
without, however, slavishly following chronology in every de
tail. In the Acts the chronological order is plain, as a rule.
But there is no proof that Luke deliberately formed a scheme
of theological development in the life of Christ and then
selected his material to illustrate it. 8 Luke sometimes prefers
another order to the chronological, but it is always a systematic
treatment and not a mere hotch-potch.

He has a proper proportion, also, in his use of his material,

1 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 11.

2 xaOe^g. Peculiar to Luke in the N. T.

3 Eus., Hist. EccL, 3 : 39, 151. 4 T^SC.

5 Philology of the Gospels, pp. 18 f .

6 Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 14,

7 Comm., p. xxxvii. 8 Ibid.

54 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

and writes the story with due regard to scale and space. 1 Each
event receives treatment according to its importance in rela
tion to the whole. "The historian who is to give a brief his
tory of a great period need not reproduce on a reduced uniform
scale all the facts which he would mention in a long history,
like a picture reduced by a photographic process." 2 He must
omit a great deal, he must seize the critical points, he must
interpret the great personalities, he must make the whole
vivid, and give a true perspective. The outstanding feature
of Luke s Gospel is its completeness. It charms one with its
sheer beauty and power.

There is no discounting the artistic skill of Luke in his lit
erary workmanship. He must be attacked on some other
ground. But there is no trace of literary affectation or arti
ficial whimsicalities. Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay 3 makes
out an interesting case for his theory that Luke is fond of
"triplications" in his Gospel. But one wonders if Luke made
conscious use of such a literary device. He is writing a serious
history, not mere memoirs, not a biographical puzzle. He is
full of the historic spirit and sets forth the grand development
of the life of Christ toward the great Tragedy and the grand
victory of the Resurrection.

Luke s Gospel is the nearest approach to a biography 4 that
we have, since he begins with the birth and carries on, at inter
vals, to the grand close. It is not only the most comprehen
sive, but it is also the longest of the gospels. If we think of
the whole course of Christian history in the Gospel and Acts
the work is chronological. 5 The figures are drawn with life
like power and the greatest drama of human history is set forth
with supreme literary skill. The book is a scholar s attempt
to picture and to interpret the life of Christ for the world at
large. Theophilus is the representative of this outside world
beyond Palestine. Luke has supreme equipment for such an
undertaking by birth, education and diligence. As a scien
tific physician he learned to make generalizations from speci
mens. So as the historian he knows how to make the miracles
and parables of Jesus picture the Great Physician and Teacher.

1 Ramsay, Was Christ Barn at Bethlehem ?, p. 14.

2 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 7.

3 The Literary Marvels of St. Luke (1919).

4 Plummer, Comm., p. xli. B Chase, Credibility of the Acts, p. 17.

LUKE S METHOD OF RESEARCH 55

8. Reliable Results. Luke is able to assure Theophilus, who
had already received technical instruction 1 in the matters per
taining to the life of Christ, and whose deep interest in the
subject can be assumed, that he can feel confident concerning
"the certainty" of the new narrative. Luke wrote pointedly
"that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things
wherein thou wast instructed." Theophilus had received many
details 2 about the various events which the ministers of the
word had related to Luke. 3 Now he will have the same full
knowledge 4 that the Christians in Judea have enjoyed, with
the advantage that he will have it in a comprehensive and
unified treatise that will preserve in written form much that
would else be perishable. 5 Luke may not have perceived what
a treasure for mankind he had prepared, but he wishes The
ophilus to understand "that the faith which he has embraced
has an impregnable historical foundation." 6

There is a solemn emphasis in the conclusion of Luke s pref
ace. Harnack 7 admits, as we have seen, that Luke " certainly
believes himself to be an historian." Ramsay 8 has a luminous
chapter on "Luke s History: What it professes to be" in his
Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ? He shows that it is distinctly
uncritical to accept the Gospel and Acts "as the work of the
real St. Luke, the follower and disciple and physician and inti
mate friend of Paul," and then "to write about the inadequacy
of his authorities, the incompleteness of his information, the
puzzling variation in the scale and character of his narrative
according as he had good or inferior authorities to trust to." 9
Certainly Luke would repudiate that estimate of his work.
"He claims to state throughout what is perfectly trustworthy.
It may be allowed, consistently, that his information was not
everywhere agreeably good and complete." 10 Ramsay 11 presses
the argument of Luke to a conclusion: "Either an author who

This verb is used in 21:21 of wrong information, but
that is not the essential idea, as Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 20) seems
to think. The verb XOCTIQX&O means to sound down or din into the ears.

2 X6Yoi in verse 4, not xpiYf-aTa of verse 1.

3 Plummer, Comm., p. 5.

4 !iuyv(p&lt;;. Additional (ext-) knowledge.

6 Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 20.

6 Plummer, Comm., p. 5. 7 Luke the Physician, p. 123.

8 Pp. 3-21. 9 Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? p. 16.

&gt;Ibid, "Ibid., p. 18.

56 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

begins with a declaration such as that (in his preface) had
mixed freely with many of the eye-witnesses and actors in the
events which he proceeds to record, or he is a thorough impos
tor, who consciously and deliberately aims at producing belief
in his exceptional qualifications in order to gain credit for his
History." "If the author was an impostor, his work remains
one of the most incomprehensible and unintelligible facts in
literary history."

Luke has made his bold claim. It has been viciously at
tacked by various critics. Nothing but "the demonstration of
hard facts" will clear the issue. Who is right, Luke or his
modern critics? Enough has been discovered to test Luke s
accuracy in crucial and important points, in the very points
where he has been attacked. Meanwhile, we shall assume that
Luke has made a careful use of his material and is entitled to
make his confident claim to Theophilus. He aims to give a
record of the truth in both Gospel and Acts. 1

9. The Stamp of Luke s Personality. Luke was no mere
chronicler of dry details. He was not a scrap-book historian
who simply spliced together documents. He used literary
sources as every real historian must. They influenced his
style, in certain parts more than in others, but he put his own
stamp upon all the material that he incorporated. Luke, un
like Shakespeare, reveals his personality in the Gospel and the
Acts. "Carlyle could not write another man s biography
without writing his autobiography between the lines. No
more could Luke." 2 Hence we can rejoice all the more that
Luke felt impelled ("it seemed good to me also") to write.
"It was such a book as a lover of men could write for a lover
of God." 3 But it is the self-revelation of a soul that was
humble and Christ-like. "There are times when one wishes
that he had never read the New Testament Scriptures that
he might some day open the Gospel according to Luke, and the
most beautiful book in the world might come upon his soul
like sunrise." 4

He was called a painter by the ancients. Plummer 5 traces
it to the sixth century to Theodorus Lector, reader in the
Church in Constantinople. He states that the Empress

1 Rackham, Acts, p. xxxvii.

2 Hayes, The Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 265.

4 Ian Maclaren. 6 Comm., p. xxii.

LUKE S METHOD OF RESEARCH 57

Eudoxia found at Jerusalem a picture of Mary the mother of
Jesus, painted by Luke. There is, at least, this much of truth
in the legend. Luke has exerted a profound influence upon
Christian art by his lifelike portrayals of character in the
Gospel and the Acts. He painted with his pen, if not with
his brush. His pictures are drawn to the life and glow with
life.

It is interesting to note that all the early writers assign the
ox or calf to Luke, though differing greatly concerning the
other three symbolical figures for the other Gospels (the man,
the lion, the eagle). It is probable that Luke s Gospel was
so called 1 because it is the Gospel of propitiation, of sacrifice.
The priesthood of Christ comes to the fore in the Gospel of
Luke and Jesus is pictured with the priestly attributes of sym
pathy, compassion and mercy. 2

The most astonishing trait in Luke s style is his versatility.
He is not only the most versatile writer in the New Testament,
but one of the most versatile of all historians. "He can be
as Hebraistic as the Septuagint, and as far from Hebraisms as
Plutarch." 3 Certainly he is Hebraistic because of his Ara
maic sources in Luke 1 and 2 and Acts 1-5, but it is at least
open to one to think "that he has here allowed his style to be
Hebraistic because he felt that such a style was appropriate
to his subject-matter." 4 The contrast is sharpest in Luke
1 : 1-4 and the rest of chapter 1 and all of 2, but we see it also
in the Acts. Moffatt 5 sees "the literary finish of the third
Gospel" in the careful rhythm of the prologue, his versatility
in using the "archaic semi-Biblical style" and in "leaving the
rough translation of an Aramaic source practically unchanged
for the sake of effect." But the unity of Luke s style is pre
served throughout both Gospel and Acts in his characteristic
freedom of expression and in the range of his vocabulary. 6
Luke exhibits the science of the trained student and the skill
of the artist in giving "an harmonious picture" 7 by the use of
varied material. "St. Luke exhibits constant proof of his
Greek origin in the substitution of more cultured terms for the

2 Luckock, Special Characteristics of the Four Gospels, pp. 166-181.
3 Plummer, Comm., p. xlix. 4 Ibid.

5 Intr. to the Lit. of the N. T., p. 278. 6 Ibid., p. 279.

7 Milligan, N. T. Documents, p. 151.

58 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

colloquialisms of the other synoptists, while his treatment of
Q is marked by various stylistic alterations." 1 In a number of
passages in the Gospel and the Acts "the phraseology seems
to be purposely varied for no other reason than that of impart
ing a certain literary elegance to the narrative." 2 Luke em
ploys some 750 words in the Gospel and Acts not found else
where in the New Testament. Some of these are due to the
medical terminology of Luke and some to the nautical terms
in Acts 27. A few occur nowhere else, so far as known. Nor-
den 3 and Blass 4 see Atticistic influence in Luke s style, but this
is not necessary. Certainly he has a fine command of the
literary Koine as well as of the vernacular. 5 He is fluent, but
not prolix. His style reveals the same finish that we saw in
his research.

Hayes 6 describes Luke as a musician because he is the first
great Christian hymnologist. He has preserved the psalms of
praise from Elizabeth, Mary, Zacharias, the angels and Simeon.
We do not have to think that Luke composed these noble
songs of praise and prayer. But he alone has preserved them
because he had a soul for music and for poetry.

Carpenter 7 has a chapter on "S. Luke the Artist." By this
expression he means that he was "a master of style." Style
is difficult of definition. Style is the man, to be sure, but
style varies with the subject, and style varies with one s age.
Stalker says that style is shaped by full knowledge of the sub
ject. Certainly Luke s "supreme delineation of the Saviour
of the world" rests primarily on fulness of knowledge on the
part of the man of culture whose heart is loyal to Jesus as
Lord. There are abundant proofs of Luke s artistic skill.
He has touches that would please cultured Gentiles like "the
good and honest heart" in 8:15. 8 Carpenter 9 suggests that
Luke s fondness for "table-talk" (Luke 7:36f.; 11:37!.;
14 : 1 f .) may be due to his knowledge of the symposia of Greek

1 Ibid., p. 149. 2 Milligan, N. T. Documents.

3 Kunstprosa, II, pp. 485 ff .

4 Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa, p. 42.

5 Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N. T., p. 122.

6 Synoptic Gospels and Acts, pp. 188 f.

7 Christianity According to S. Luke, pp. 189-202.

8 xap8(&lt;jc xaXfi xal dcfa6f). Plato and other Greek writers use xaXbq
as the equivalent of "gentleman." Carpenter, op. cit., p. 190.

p. 191.

LUKE S METHOD OF RESEARCH 59

literature. Luke knows how to make a cumulative effect by
contrast as in parables in rapid succession in chapters 14-18.
Carpenter 1 shows that Luke is "a master of tragic irony." He
knows how to make the climax tell by saying just enough and
no more. The intellectual surprise is complete and abiding.
The story of the two disciples going to Emmaus in Luke 24
is the most beautiful story in all the world. It is told with
consummate skill. Luke can depict a situation with supreme
art.

As a painter of short portraits Luke also excels. He has
drawn the pictures of Jesus, Peter and Paul on large canvas
with the master s hand. Luke has made his story vivid both
in the Gospel and the Acts by the use of the power of person
ality. He understood the true principle of dealing with so
vast a subject. He found the secret in personality. 2 "His
short pen pictures of Zacharias, the Virgin Mother, Martha
and Mary, Zacchseus, and the repentant robber are masterly." 3

But, scholar as Luke is, he is also a mystic of the true kind.
" Strange and unexpected touches occur in Luke s narrative,
corresponding to the astonishing and inexplicable psychological
experiences of ordinary life." 4 The proofs are many. "They
yet believed not for joy" (Luke 24:41). "What a natural
touch that was ! They believed it, and yet it was too good to
be true." 5 Carpenter 6 devotes a whole chapter to "S. Luke
the Psychologist." It is not only fine workmanship that Luke
gives us. He exhibits insight into human nature. He knows
also the ways of God s Spirit with man. Carpenter 7 quotes a
theologian who said to him that Luke was the Evangelist that
he should like most to meet. "S. John was a saint, but I
think I know the kind of thing that he would say to me. But
S. Luke is different. He was not a saint. He was a psycholo
gist. I should like to meet him." Loisy 8 finds the chief charm
of Luke in "a certain psychological note, a profound sense of
the things of the soul." So Luke is a psychologist among the
saints for the benefit of the saints.

1 Ibid., p. 194. 2 Rackham, Acts, p. xl.

3 Carpenter, Christianity according to S. Luke, p. 195.

4 Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 225.

5 Ibid. 6 Op. cit., pp. 177-188.

7 Op. cit., p. 177.

8 Les fivangiks Synoptiques, I, p. 260.

60 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

He is certainly a lover of mankind who fell in love with
Jesus. "From being interested in the singular case of one
Paul, a travelling sophist, whose restless zeal begins to play
havoc with the constitution, he passed to the consideration of
one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive
(Acts 25 : 19)." l He had the devotion to Jesus that Plutarch
calls pietas, when a biographer loves his subject. Luke was
not a formal theologian, but he had the sense of mystery in
the presence of Christ s overwhelming personality. Chester
ton 2 says: "Christ had even a literary style of his own, not to
be found, I think, elsewhere; it consists in an almost furious
use of the a fortiori. His how much more is piled one upon
another like castle upon castle in the clouds." Carpenter 3
notes that in the use of this figure Luke s Gospel is in affinity
with the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Carpenter 4 observes also how Luke understood the loneliness
of Jesus. "One of the penalties of greatness is loneliness.
The great artist is, perhaps, never understood by his contem
poraries. The consummate Artist has twelve pupils, but they
do not understand him. And the Evangelist, himself an artist,
has not failed to indicate this in his picture. One of the chief
impressions taken from the Gospel is that Our Lord lived
alone." As one instance, note that " it came to pass as he was
praying by himself" (Luke 9 : 18). Carpenter 5 does not claim
that Luke "understood all the pathos and the glory of Our
Lord s life, that he was fully sensitive to the whole wonder of
its sweetness and its tragedy and its triumphs," but in Luke
we learn how Jesus "experienced in the days of His flesh some
thing of that which may be called, perhaps unworthily and
foolishly, but not altogether inexcusably, the loneliness of
God." 6 The humanity of Jesus in Luke is not the deity of
humanity so much as the humanity of deity.

1 Carpenter, Op. dt. } p. 178. 2 Orthodoxy, p. 269.

3 Op. tit., p. 184. 4 Ibid ., p. 186.

* Op. at., p. 187. Ibid., p. 188.

CHAPTER V

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL
"Even as they delivered them unto us" (Luke 1:2).

Luke tells us frankly that he used sources of information in
writing his Gospel which were of two kinds, oral and written.
It is possible to tell in a broad way some of these sources and
how he used them.

1. Assimilation rather than Quotation. This was the method
of the ancients. It is a fine exercise to read First Maccabees
in the translation Greek in which we have it, an evident trans
lation from a Hebrew or Aramaic original, and then turn to
the corresponding passage of the Antiquities of Josephus where
the same ground is covered as in the story of Judas Macca
beus. It is perfectly manifest that Josephus has followed the
narrative of First Maccabees. He has written his account in
flowing, idiomatic Greek of the literary Koine, at times really
Atticistic in conscious imitation of the Attic literary models.
He has avoided the frequent Hebraisms in First Maccabees,
but has used the material freely and faithfully, without any
mention of his source. That is his usual practice. Occasion
ally Josephus does allude to some of the writers whom he con
sulted, but there is little formal quotation. Josephus did not
consider himself a copyist, but a historian, and used his data
with freedom.

Luke employed the literary devices of men of his age. "In
using his materials Luke s methods are in the main those of
other writers of the same period. They are quite unlike those
of modern writers. A writer of the present day seeks to tell
his story in his own words and in his own way, giving refer
ences to, and, if necessary, quotations from, his sources, but
carefully avoiding all confusion between traditional fact and
critical inference, and certainly never altering the direct state
ment of the earlier document without expressly mentioning
the fact. The method of antiquity was, as a rule, almost the
reverse. The author of a book based on earlier materials

62 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

strung together a series of extracts into a more or less coherent
whole, giving no indication of his sources, and modifying them
freely in order to harmonize them." In this paragraph Lake 1
has given a fair statement of ancient usage. There was no
idea of plagiarizing in failing to give credit. It was simply a
different literary habit. Lake thinks that it is "obviously
inferior to modern procedure," but he agrees that Luke used
it well. That is putting it mildly when critics treat the Gos
pel as a work of consummate literary skill. And yet Luke
does make quotations from the Old Testament, though nothing
like so frequently or so formally as Matthew s Gospel. There
were regular formulas for scriptural quotations, but these were
not always employed. The early Christian writers, as J. Ren-
del Harris 2 shows, were fond of quoting Testimonia or strings
of quotations like what Paul has in Romans 3.

And yet Luke was not a slavish copyist. The stamp of his
own personality is on all his work. Sanday 3 has some wise and
true words on the folly of complaining at the Gospels for free
dom in the use of their sources: "The Evangelists thought of
themselves not merely as copyists but as historians. They are
not unconscious of a certain dignity in their calling. They are
something more than scribes tied down to the text which they
have before them. They considered themselves entitled to
reproduce it freely and not slavishly. They do not hesitate to
tell the story over again in their own words." Luke does not
hesitate to use what others have written, if it suits his purpose,
but he does not confine himself to any one source. He is writ
ing his own book. His Gospel is more elaborate than the other
Gospels. "Accordingly, there is perhaps in his case a little
more of the blending or fusion of different authorities. He has
a somewhat higher ambition in the matter of style. In a
word, he approximates rather more nearly to the ancient sec
ular historian." 4 " It was very much their (secular historians )
ideals which guided his hand." 5 But, with all the freedom in
the use of their sources, it is amazing how much alike the pic
ture of Jesus is in all the Synoptic Gospels. "Verse after verse,
saying after saying, might be quoted to you from the three

1 Art. "Luke," Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Church, pp. 771 f.

2 Various articles in The Expositor

3 Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 12.

4 Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 13. 6 Ibid., p. 14.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 63

Synoptic Gospels, and, unless you happened to have special
knowledge or had given special attention to such matters, you
would be unable to say to which Gospel they really belonged." l

Sanday 2 reminds us that the physical difficulties in the way
of quoting books played a large part in their literary method.
The ancients used tables for eating, not for writing, and for
paying out money. They had desks, "but they were not like
our desks, on a writing-table. They were quite small, like the
reading-desks that we attach to the arm of an armchair. As
a rule they are affixed to a raised stand, which is independent
of other furniture." One can easily see that the roll was not
a convenient form for a book or for such a little desk. The
pictures of early writers, as of Virgil, 3 represent one as sitting
with the open roll on his knees and the desk at his side. The
ancient writer had great difficulty in keeping one roll open
from which he was copying, and the other open on which he
was writing. There would be the constant tendency to trust
one s memory, as in oral transmission, though the habits of
writers would vary.

Luke s habit was to give a series of separate pictures with
local color. He individualized the separate incidents and gave
"editorial notes," as A. Wright calls them, that gave the fin
ishing touches to the story.

We must remember, moreover, that we do not know all the
sources that Luke employed nor his precise method in the use
of all of them.

2. Primitive Semitic Sources. Where did Luke get his infor
mation for 1 : 5-2 : 52 of his Gospel ? Wellhausen drops this
portion from his edition of Luke s Gospel as not worthy of
consideration by the modern historian. At once, therefore,
we see Luke put on the defensive in the use of his sources,
when he finishes his prologue. The instant change in his style
shows that he is using Semitic material unless he is inventing
the whole story of the infancy narratives, and by supreme
literary skill is giving them a Semitic flavor to create the im
pression of their genuineness. It is possible to think that
Luke has been influenced by reading the Septuagint, and that
there may be intentional imitation by Luke, though a Greek.

1 Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission, p. 216.

2 Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 16 ff.

3 Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst, p. 178.

64 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

But, if so, why did he not keep the Aramaic or Hebrew color
ing throughout? There are scattered Hebraisms in the Gos
pel, but not to the extent that we see them in Chapters I and
II. Allen 1 is confident that "conscious imitation of the Sep-
tuagint will quite adequately account for" these Hebraisms.
Dalman 2 thinks that Luke "does not shrink from using those
Hebraisms which are most foreign to the feeling of the Greek
language." Bartlet 3 holds that " he consciously writes his
Gospel on the lines of the Greek Bible." Probably so, but
one can hardly think of so careful and faithful a writer as
Luke consciously using Hebraisms to give a sacred flavor to
his narrative. To me Luke seems quite incapable of such a
literary artifice. Least of all can one think of the Greek Luke
inventing the hymns of Mary and of Zacharias.

If Luke "is a historian of the first rank" and worthy of
being "placed along with the very greatest historians," as
Ramsay 4 argues, then he meets a severe test at once in these
opening chapters. He has just claimed that his narrative is
trustworthy and reliable in its use of the sources. The very
first instance that we have is the story of the infancy. Cer
tainly Luke means his report of the birth of Jesus to be taken
seriously. 5 We have seen already that "Luke did not rest
his narrative on unsifted traditions." 6 We cannot except the
opening chapters from this statement. Indeed, "the author
must have regarded this part of his work with special interest,
and been impelled to work it up with peculiar care, on account
of the authority on which it rested." 7 It is urged by some
that this section was a later addition, because Marcion omits
Chapters 1-4 from his edition of Luke, but the Lukan char
acteristics are in these early chapters. Wright 8 holds that

1 "Aramaic Background of the Gospels" (Oxford Studies in the Synoptic
Problem, p. 293).

2 The Words of Jesus, p. 83.

1 "Sources of St. Luke s Gospel" (Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem,
p. 317). Aramaisms in Luke s style here are seen in such constructions
as &lt;*&lt;M&lt;;, fofcrro, $9u&lt;;, the use of ec;j.( with the participle, while genuine
Hebraisms appear in Iv TO&gt; and the infinitive, xcrt iflwco, dcxoxptOsl? elxev,
!xi0u^(&lt;jc IxeOujjiiqaa. Cf . Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 17 fit.

4 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 222.

5 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 73.

6 Moffatt, Intr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 263.

7 Ramsay. Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 73.

8 Gospel According to St. Luke in Gk., pp. viii f.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 65

Luke wrote it, but added it last to the book. We have noted
that it is unlikely that Luke would have written a free com
position in archaic style.

The remaining hypothesis is that Luke used Semitic sources
for the infancy narrative. It is not certain whether Luke s
authority here was oral or written, Hebrew or Aramaic. Plum-
mer (Comm., p. xxiii) thinks that "we need not doubt the first
two Chapters are made up of written narratives, of which we
can see the conclusions at 1 : 80, 2 : 40 and 2 : 52." It is
argued that Luke had a written source in original Hebrew. 1
Dalman 2 holds that a Greek like Luke could not have known
Aramaic. But that is not certain. There is no real reason
why Luke could not know enough Aramaic to translate it
himself. 3 There are some traces of an Aramaic original.

But Ramsay argues at great length that the Aramaic source
was oral and not written, and that Mary herself was that
source, either directly or indirectly. The story "is an episode
of family history of the most private character." 4 Sanday 5
thinks that Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod s steward, was
probably Mary s confidante, and told Luke the wonderful
story. We may take it as certain that Luke did not record
" the narrative of the birth and childhood of Christ from mere
current talk and general belief: he had it in a form for which
Mary herself was in his opinion the responsible authority." 6
The story is told from the standpoint of Mary, as in Matthew
the birth of Jesus is given from the standpoint of Joseph.
Luke himself says that Mary "kept all these sayings hid in
her heart" (2 : 19), and once more he states that "Mary kept
all these sayings, pondering them in her heart" (2 : 21). "The
historian, by emphasizing the silence and secrecy in which she
treasured up the facts, gives the reader to understand that
she is the authority." 7 With this judgment Harnack 8 agrees:
"Indeed, from 2 : 19, 51 it follows that the stories are intended
to be regarded in the last instance from Mary herself." "His

1 "Aramaic Background of the Gospels" (Oxford Studies in the Synoptic
Problem, p. 292).

2 Words of Jesus, pp. 38 f .

3 Moffatt, Intr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 267.

4 Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 74.

5 Expository Times, XIV, p. 299.

6 Ramsay, op. cit., p. 80. 7 Ramsay, op. cit., p. 75.
8 Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 155.

66 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

practice elsewhere as an historian proves that he could not
have himself invented a fiction like this." l The physician is
brought into close relation with the inner life of women, who
will reveal to him what they would shrink from mentioning to
other men. There is no known reason why Luke could not
have seen Mary herself if she was still living. Certainly the
current oral Gospel (see Mark) would not contain the birth
narrative. The delicate tact and restraint with which Luke
gives the story add to the impression of genuineness and
remove the narrative entirely from the mythological stories of
the gods and goddesses of Babylon and Greece. 2

The story of John s birth was matter of common talk (Luke
1 : 65 f.). It is not hard to understand how Luke could get
the data for his narrative. It may have come from the circle
of the disciples of John. 3 Luke presents John as the forerun
ner and the inferior of Jesus. 4

The genealogy in Luke 2 : 23-38 would come, of course,
"from some legal or tribal or temple document." 5

There is every reason to conclude that Luke had solid ground
for his narrative in the early chapters of his Gospel.

3. Mark s Gospel. It is now practically demonstrated that
Luke and Matthew made use of the Gospel of Mark. One can
test this for himself, even in the English translation, by a use
of a harmony of the Gospels. Thus we are able to test Luke s
literary method. If one reads Mark 2:9-11 and then Matt.
9 : 5-6 and Luke 5 : 23-24, it is obvious that both Matthew
and Luke had Mark s text before them, for both preserve the
parenthetical clause ("He saith to the paralytic," "Then saith
he to the paralytic," "He said to the paralyzed man") and
both follow Mark in placing the clause at the same place in
the midst of a saying of Jesus. The oral theory will not ex
plain a case like this. Both Matthew and Luke had a docu
ment before them. That document is our Mark. It is not
absolutely certain that Matthew and Luke had Mark s Gospel
in precisely the form in which we have it, or in the same form
for each. Holdsworth 6 suggests that Mark edited three edi-

1 Ibid. 2 Harnack, op. tit., p. 156. 3 Ibid., p. 154.

4 Cf . Wilkinson, A Johannine Document in the First Chapter of S. Luke s
Gospel (1902).

6 Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 199.
6 Gospel Origins, pp. 109-129.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 67

tions of his Gospel. The first form was used by Luke, the
second by Matthew, and the third is our canonical Mark.
Stanton 1 follows the same line of argument. N. P. Williams 2
thinks that Mark s earlier edition omitted Chapter XIII, and
the so-called great interpolation (Mark 6:45-8:26). But,
apart from this, Williams will have no "Ur-Marcus" after the
theory of Wendling. 3 Sanday 4 sees no necessity of either an
"Ur-Marcus" or of a threefold edition of Mark s Gospel. He
calls attention to the fact that Luke did not have to make a
slavish use of Mark or of any of his sources. He felt free to
make minor variations at will. There were probably varia
tions in the text of Mark as used by Matthew and Luke.
M. Jones 5 is inclined to agree with Sanday. Hawkins 6 thinks
that a later edition may have added a few details, but sees no
need of an appeal to various editions. Swete sees no cause for
such editions, but is willing to consider some editorial revision. 7
It is clear that Luke had Mark before him and practically in
the form in which we possess it to-day. 8 We know that Luke
was with Mark in Rome about A. D. 63 (Col. 4 : 10; Phile
mon 24).

Mark is one, but only one, of Luke s sources. Luke follows
Mark s general order of events, especially in the first part of
the Gospel. One needs a deal of common sense in matters of
criticism to avoid one-sided and erroneous conclusions. Rather
more than half of Luke s material is now found in his Gospel
alone. 9 The rest is divided between what Mark has and the
non-Markan matter common to Luke and Matthew. But in
a broad view of the material about two-thirds of Luke s Gospel
follows the track of Mark, while three-fourths of Matthew s
Gospel uses Mark s Gospel as a framework. 10 Apart from a
few transpositions, Matthew and Luke do not desert Mark s

1 The Gospels as Historical Documents, part II, p. 203.

2 Oxford Studies, p. 421.

3 Urmarcus (1905); Die Entstehung des Marcusevangeliums (1908).

4 Oxford Studies, pp. 11-22. See also my Studies in Mark s Gospel,
pp. 14 f .

6 N. T. in the Twentieth Century, p. 203.

6 Horce Synopticce, p. 152.

7 Commentary, p. lix. 8 Plummer, Comm., p. xxiii.
9 Bebb, art. "Luke," in Hastings s D. B.

"Hawkins, "Three Limitations to St. Luke s Use of St. Mark s Gospel"
(Oxford Studies, p. 29).

68 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

order, except in Matt. 7 : 13 and Luke 9 : 51-18 : 14. Luke
uses three-fourths of Mark s Gospel, but Luke does not always
follow Mark in matters of detail. Sometimes Matthew repro
duces Mark, where Luke takes another turn. Harnack 1 thinks
that Luke is somewhat prejudiced against Mark and "wrote
his Gospel in order to supplant Mark." I doubt that, but it is
remarkable that Mark has survived, since Matthew and Luke
incorporated nearly all of Mark, all but some fifty verses.

Mark s Gospel has the vivid touches of Peter s picturesque
portrayal which gives the lifelike coloring of an eye-witness. 2
Luke cares less for these delicate nuances and has dropped
Mark s "green grass" and "flower-beds" (Mark 6 : 39 f.; Luke
9 : 14 f.). Luke has a more polished style and smoothes out
apparent roughnesses or lack of exactness in Mark. In Mark

1 : 4 we have the picture of digging through 3 the roof of a Pal
estinian hut, and the picture describes what actually occurred.
Luke (5 : 19) seems rather to have the picture of a Roman
house with a tile roof. 4 Carpenter 5 thinks that nearly all of
the changes and omissions in Luke can be explained. Both
Matthew and Luke largely avoid Mark s frequent use of the
historical present. There are a few other instances, probably
due to textual variations, in which Matthew and Luke agree
against Mark, but they are unimportant. 6

It seems unlikely that Luke made any use of Mark at all for

2 : 51-18 : 14. Here, as we shall see, Luke had other sources.
But Luke did not use Mark 6 : 45-8 : 26, what is termed the
great omission. It is not clear why Luke made no use of this
portion of Mark. It may have been accidental, but it is more
likely intentional on Luke s part, because he had so much
other matter which he desired to use. 7 Hawkins 8 thinks that
the material -was such that Luke would not be indisposed to

1 Luke the Physician , p. 158.

2 Robertson, Studies in Mark s Gospel, eh. IV. 3 l^opu^cevTe?.
4 Sco: TUV xspdfjLwv. Cf. Ramsay, Luke the Physician, p. 46.

6 Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 130. Cadbury (The Treatment of
Sources in the Gospel, p. 96) thinks that in some instances Luke misunder
stood Mark.

6 Hawkins, Horce Synopticce, pp. 201 f.; Carpenter, op. cit., pp. 130 f.
In Luke 5 : 19 Klostermann (Handbuch zum N. T., 1919, in loco) calls xaOf
" lukanisch " for

7 See Hawkins, "The Great Omission" (Oxford Studies, pp. 60-74)

8 Op. cit. t p. 74.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 69

pass it by. Holdsworth, Williams, and Wright say that Luke s
edition of Mark did not contain this section.

In the Passion narrative (Luke 22 : 14-24 : 10) Luke follows
Mark, but with more freedom than elsewhere, and apparently
with other sources at hand. Hawkins 1 has a thorough discus
sion of the subject and seems to prove the point. In Luke
22 : 15-22 reference to the betrayal by Judas comes after the
supper, and there are two cups in Luke s account of the sup
per. What other source or sources did Luke possess? It is
clear that he had at least one other document, besides oral
witnesses, almost certainly two, and possibly more. He used
Mark in common with Matthew. Did Matthew and Luke
have any other document that both show signs of using?

4. The Logia (Q). About one-sixth of Luke s Gospel agrees
with Matthew s Gospel in non-Markan material. Whence did
they get it? This matter consists mainly of sayings of Jesus.
Hence, it is supposed that there was a collection of such say
ings, called Logia of Jesus. Indeed, we know that such was
the case, for scraps of such collections have been found in the
papyri of Egypt. 2 Besides, Papias 3 expressly says that "Mat
thew composed the oracles 4 in the Hebrew 5 language, and each
man interpreted them as he was able." To what does Papias,
as quoted by Eusebius, refer ? It is hard to think that Papias
is describing our present Gospel of Matthew, which does not
seem to be a translation from Aramaic or Hebrew. 6 True, the
term "oracles" need not be confined to discourses, though that
is the natural way to take it. "One or two critics suppose it
to be the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Professor Burkitt
and some others believe it to have been a collection of Testi-
monia or Messianic proof-texts from the Old Testament. But
the most probable view is that which identifies the Logia with
Q." 7 Now what is Q? Q stands for the German word for
source (Quelle) and simply acts as a symbol for the non-

1 Op. tit., pp. 76-95.

2 Lock and Sanday, Two Lectures on the Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus
(1889); Taylor, The Oxyrhynchus Logia (1899); Taylor, The Oxyrhynchus
Sayings of Jesus (1905).

3 Eusebius, Hist. EccL, III, 39. 4 -ci X6yta.
6 Probably Aramaic, as in Paul s case (Acts 22 : 2).

6 See Introduction to my Comm. on Matt. (Bible for Home and School) for
discussion.

7 Carpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 140.

70 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Markan matter common to both Matthew and Luke. It is
not hard to see what this material is. Hawkins 1 gives a care
ful list of the passages where Matthew and Luke agree in the
use of the non-Markan matter. Harnack 2 gives the Greek
text of these passages with critical notes and appraisement.
It is possible, even probable, that Matthew himself wrote this
collection of Logia which critics call Q. 3 But Q is used to
avoid begging the question on that subject. 4 Only the use of
Q must not be allowed to prejudice one against the idea that
Matthew did write it. 5 The use of so many parallel passages
of considerable length seems to prove a common written source. 6
It would be possible 7 to explain these passages on the theory
that Luke made use of our present Gospel of Matthew but for
the great divergence between Luke and Matthew in the birth
narrative, the genealogy and various matters of detail. It is
not necessary to decide here whether Matthew himself wrote
in Greek the present Gospel of his name, as is quite possible,
as well as the Logia (Aramaic or Greek or both). What is cer
tain is that Luke had access to the same source for this material
that our present Matthew had. 8 Streeter 9 thinks that "had
Matthew written, it would have been a book like this." The
hope has been expressed that a copy of Q may yet be found,
but Carpenter 10 considers it "exceedingly unlikely." J. H.
Moulton 11 has pointed out that "in no soil outside of Egypt
could a papyrus copy of Q have lain hid and yet safe from
inevitable decay." It may be thought possible that such a
copy was made and taken to Egypt.

As to the date of Q, it is clear that it is earlier than Mark.
Streeter 12 makes a good case for the view that Mark knew and
made some use of Q. Certainly Q is older than Mark. " Noth
ing prevents it from being assigned to the year fifty, or even

1 HorcB Synopticce, pp. 107-113. 2 Sayings of Jesus (1908).

8 Harnack, ibid., p. 249.

4 Robinson, Study of the Gospels, pp. 69 f .

5 Hawkins, op. cit., p. 107. 6 Ibid., p. 66.

7 As Holtzmann, Simons, Wendt and others do in fact.

8 B. Weiss, Intr. to the Lit. of N. T., II, p. 294.

9 Oxford Studies, p. 216.

10 Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 141, n. 3.

11 Expositor, July, 1917, p. 17.

12 Oxford Studies, pp. 165-183.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 71

earlier." l Streeter 2 adds: "If our characterization of Q above
is correct, it was probably written twenty years before Mark,
and might well have reached Rome before him." Ramsay 3
thinks that Q was written down during the life of Jesus and did
not include the account of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Ramsay 4 has developed this contention with great plausibility
that Q is "a document practically contemporary with the
facts, and it registered the impressions made on eye-witnesses
of the words and acts of Christ" (p. 89). Streeter 5 suggests
that Mark wrote to supplement Q as Luke wrote to supplement
both Q and Mark. He makes much of the point that Q is
close to the living oral tradition. "At that period and in that
non-literary society of Palestine only that was written down
which one would be likely to forget." 6 All this would suit the
idea that Matthew, the publican, took down notes of the say
ings of Jesus, if necessary in shorthand, which was in common
use at that time. Allen 7 agrees with Ramsay that Harnack s
notion of Q forbids its circulation in the early years of Chris
tian history, and holds, at any rate, that Harnack abbreviates
Q too much. But Harnack only presents a minimum.

As to the original extent of Q, Streeter 8 shows it was almost
certainly larger than the non-Markan material common to
Luke and Matthew. But Matthew and Luke differ in their
use of Mark. The common Markan material amounts to
only two-thirds of our Mark. Each uses portions of Mark not
used by the other. Precisely this situation probably exists as
to Q. If so, we must greatly enlarge our idea of the extent
of Q. Besides, Hawkins 9 shows that Matthew and Luke put
three-fourths of Q, as used by them, in different places. It
must be still further admitted that Q may have contained mat
ter not used by either Matthew or Luke.

Streeter 10 thinks it possible that Matthew and Luke had dif
ferent editions of Q. Bartlet n takes up this idea and carries it
still further. He holds that, when Luke got hold of Q, it had

1 Harnack, Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 125, n. 1.

2 Oxjord Studies, p. 219. 3 Expositor, May, 1907.

4 "The Oldest Written Gospel" (Luke the Physician, pp. 71-101). So
Salmon, The Human Element in the Gospels, p. 274.

5 Oxford Studies, p. 219. 6 Oxford Studies, p. 215.
7 Ibid., p. 239. 8 Ibid., p. 185.

9 Oxford Studies, p. 120. 10 Ibid., p. 205.

11 "The Sources of St. Luke s Gospel" (Oxford Studies, pp. 313-363).

72 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

already been combined with another special source, so that
Bartlet can talk of QM, QMk, QL. Stanton 1 agrees with
Bartlet in this view of Luke s special source. This is a special
two-document theory for Luke. The commonly accepted two-
document hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke used
Mark and Q. Both Matthew and Luke had, of course, other
sources of information, but these two explain most of what we
find in them. Sanday 2 assumes this " Two-Document Hypoth
esis" and cannot follow Bartlet in his special interpretation. 3

Before we proceed to the discussion of Luke s special sources
it is pertinent to inquire what view of Christ is given in Q.
Harnack 4 discusses "the Personality of Our Lord" in Q and
seeks to give a depreciated view of Christ in our oldest known
Gospel record. But the facts do not justify this interpreta
tion, as I have shown in The Contemporary Review* in an article
on "The Christ of the Logia." The Christ of Q is in essence
the Christ of Mark, of Matthew, of Luke, of Paul, of John. The
earliest known picture of Christ is drawn on the same scale
and plan as the latest. Jesus of Nazareth is pictured in Q as
the Son of God as well as the Son of Man.

5. Other Sources of Information. It is plain that Luke had
special sources of knowledge beyond Mark and Q and beyond
the infancy narrative. Bartlet would make his second source
cover practically the whole of what Luke gives us, parallel
even with Mark s narrative. 6 But that theory is not likely to
win a foothold. Bartlet thinks that Luke s second source
came to him in oral form and was first written down by him.
It is not surprising that we are not able to find all of Luke
in Mark and Q, though we must admit that some of what we
discuss at this point may well have been in Q. It is worth
saying that Luke probably had sources that can never be
traced. He said that he had "many," both oral and written.
The facts seem to justify his statement. Kirsopp Lake 7 holds
that Luke used only Mark, Q, the LXX and possibly Josephus.
But our failure to find all of Luke s sources does not of neces
sity limit his resources. The misfortune is ours, not Luke s.

1 Gospels as Historical Documents, II, pp. 239 f .

2 Oxford Studies, p. 2. 3 Ibid ., pp. xx f .

4 The Sayings of Jesus, pp. 233-246.

5 August, 1919. 6 Oxford Studies, p. 323.
7 Hastings s Diet, of the Ap. Church.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 73

The "Two-Document Hypothesis" does not undertake to
refer all of Luke s Gospel to Mark and Q. There is a large
residuum outside, or apparently outside, for we are bound to
note that we do not know the limits of Q. Luke 9 : 51-18 : 14
is generally called the Great Interpolation, because in this sec
tion Luke fails to follow the Markan material. Hawkins 1
terms it "the Disuse of the Markan Source/* Burton 2 calls it
"the Persean Document." But Streeter 3 objects to this desig
nation and notes that of the block 9 : 51-12 : 59, "nearly four-
fifths, as occurring also in Matthew, is verifiably Q, as in the
case, also, with all but a few verses of 13 : 18-35." Certainly,
then, a large part of the so-called Great Interpolation comes
from Q. It is in this section that many of the "doublets" in
Luke s Gospel occur. Sanday 4 urges strongly that "allowance
should, however, be made for the possibility of what may be
called real doublets as well as literary doublets. I believe that
similar sayings were spoken by Our Lord more than once."
This is certainly true, as every popular preacher or teacher
knows in his own experience. Repetition is not only common
with the public speakers to different audiences in different
localities, but to the same audience, if one is to be understood.
Not only may one use similar sayings, but he must repeat the
same sayings to drive the point home. Those critics forget
this fact who insist that Luke has here dumped together a
mass of material that he did not know what else to do with,
material that really belongs elsewhere, as we see from Matthew.
But such criticism forgets, also, Luke s express claim to an
orderly discussion. It is just as easy to think of repetition of
similar incidents and like sayings in the life of Jesus. It is
precisely in the Great Interpolation that the great parables in
Luke occur. "The more we consider his collection, the more
we are entranced with it. It is the very cream of the Gospel,
and yet (strange to say) it is peculiar to Luke." 5 Wright
terms this a "Pauline collection," not because he derived it
from Paul, but because it breathes Paul s cosmopolitan spirit.
But Jesus was cosmopolitan before Paul and more so. Haw-

1 Oxford Studies, pp. 29-59.

z Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the
Synoptic Problem, p. 49.

3 Oxford Studies, pp. 189 f . 4 Oxford Studies, p. xvii.

5 Wright, Hastings s Diet, of Christ and the Gospels.

74 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

kins 1 calls it "The Travel-Document," but cannot believe that
Luke was one of the seventy sent forth by Jesus. He thinks
that Luke may even have drafted this document himself be
fore he began the Gospel narrative. He may have obtained
first-hand information from one of the eye-witnesses who was
with Jesus, possibly one of the seventy. So the matter must
rest for the present. Only we must note that Luke may well
have had a special source (written or oral) for the later Persean
and Judean Ministry, which parallels in many respects the
great Galilean Ministry. It is possible that in John s Gospel
we have a parallel to the three journeys of Jesus to Jerusalem
in this section. John describes three journeys to Jerusalem in
the later ministry (7:2; 11:17; 12:1). These may corre
spond 2 to Luke s journeys (9 : 51; 13 : 22; 17 : 11).

Did Luke have any other special sources? It has already
been noted that in Luke s account of the Passion Week Luke
"does not abandon Mark, but uses him with freedom, and
makes a number of additions." 3 Did Luke have another
written record of the Passion of Christ, or did he supplement
Mark from oral tradition ? Some hold that the copy of Q that
Luke used had received this narrative addition. It is to be
noted that Luke uses much more freedom in the arrangement
of his material here than in the early parts of his Gospel. But
Hawkins 4 holds that here, beyond a doubt, Luke makes use of
oral material, and probably as a result of Paul s preaching.
Paul preached largely about the death and resurrection of
Jesus. The account of the institution of the Lord s Supper in
Luke 22 : 19 f. is almost precisely the language of Paul in
I Cor. 11 : 23-25. Luke was a fellow worker with Paul (Phile
mon 24). Moulton has suggested that Paul was in Jerusalem
before the Crucifixion and collected evidence against Jesus,
that he had witnessed the death of Christ and that the face
he saw on the road to Damascus he had first seen on the
Cross. All this is quite possible, but Luke was not confined
to Paul s preaching and Mark s Gospel. He knew James, the

1 Oxford Studies, pp. 55 ff.

8 See Broadus s Harmony of the Gospels, p. 251.

8 Carpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 145. McLachlan (St.
Luke: The Man and His Work, p. 19) holds that Luke shows the same
" decided literary ability " in the use of these unknown sources.

Expositor, July, 1911.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL 75

brother of Jesus (Acts 21 : 18), Manaen, a foster-brother of
Herod (Acts 13:1), Joanna (Luke 8:3; 24:10), the wife of
Herod s steward Chuza, who could tell much about the trial
before Herod as well as before Pilate. Luke knew Philip and
his daughters at Caesarea (Acts 21 : 8). During the two years
at Csesarea, Luke had abundant opportunity to secure full and
precise information for his Gospel. Harnack 1 seeks to dis
credit these eye-witnesses of the word: "These we must think
of as ecstatics. Altogether wanting in sober-mindedness and
credibility, like Philip and his four prophesying daughters
who came to Asia." "Papias, who himself saw the daughters,
expressly states that they transmitted stories of the old days."
But why discredit them? They may, indeed, partly explain
Luke s interest in the work of women for Christ, but that fact
throws no shadow on his record as a historian. In the Galilean
section of the Gospel, Luke adds various items (Luke 4 : 3-13,
16-30; 5 : 1-11; 6 : 21-49; 7 : 1-8) to Mark s narrative. Bur
ton would suggest a special Galilean document for these varia
tions, but Wright thinks "anonymous fragments" sufficient
to explain the phenomena. We cannot claim that we have
traced all of Luke s sources for his Gospel. It is not necessary
to do so. Enough is now known to justify Luke s claim to
the use of "many" records and reports of eye-witnesses and
others who told the story of Jesus by voice or pen. "The
conclusion to which we must come is that S. Luke s Gospel,
as has been often pointed out, is a new work." 2 He has not
been a mere annalist or copyist. He has made careful research
for the facts and has taken equal pains to write a narrative
that is more complete than any in existence and that is accu
rate and reliable. He has done it with the skill of the literary
artist and with the stamp of his own style and personality at
every turn. He has woven the material together into a unified
whole that is to-day the joy of all lovers of Jesus and the de
spair of all imitators. Luke has made the whole world see
Jesus as he saw him, in the vivid stories and narratives that
made his own soul glow with the Light of the ages.

1 Luke the Physician, p. 153.

2 Carpenter, op. cit., p. 147. Mr. Lummis (How Luke Was Written, p.
46) thinks that Luke was a young man when he began the Gospel,

CHAPTER VI

THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS
"We sought to go forth into Macedonia" (Acts 16: 10)

1. Both Oral and Written Sources. There is no formal state
ment of Luke s method of study in the Acts, but one is entitled
to believe that what Luke said in the Gospel applies to the
Acts. 1 Certainly he would be no less industrious and pains
taking. He would use all available material that would help
him in his laudable ambition to picture the growth of Christi
anity in the Roman Empire. Luke has not told us what his
aim is in the Acts, and modern scholars differ greatly about
it. It is clear that the book is not a history of the work of all
the apostles nor of all the work of any one of them. It is not
a biography of Paul, for great gaps exist in the story of Paul s
work, as we can see from Paul s Epistles. It is not a sketch of
Peter and Paul for the purpose of reconciling two factions in
Christianity that followed these leaders. And yet it is true
that " the most superficial examination of Acts shows that it
is divided most obviously into a Peter part and a Paul
part." 2 But this is true because in the stages of the apostolic
period Peter was the chief figure, while Paul took the leader
ship later on. So in chapters 1-12 Jerusalem is the centre
of Christian activity, while in Chapters 13-28 the centre has
shifted to Antioch. An elaborate " source-criticism" has arisen
on the basis of the outstanding facts. A complicated system
of " redactions" for the result has been worked out that is theo
retical and unsatisfactory. Moffatt 3 gives a careful sketch of
the theories of Blass, Briggs, Clemen, Harnack, Jiingst, Sorof,
Spitta, B. Weiss. Headlam 4 thinks that the statement of most
of the speculations refutes them. Harnack thinks that for the

1 Luke probably had both books in mind when he wrote the Gospel.
Certain it is that both books at first circulated together, parts of one
whole. Chase, Credibility of the Acts, p. 16.

2 Lake, Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Church.

3 Intr. to Lit. of N. T., pp. 286-9. 4 Hastings s D. B., art. "Acts."

THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 77

first twelve chapters of Acts Luke has no written documents,
while C. C. Torrey holds that Luke translated an Aramaic doc
ument for Chapters 1-15. So the doctors differ. We do not
have the benefit of actual comparison of Acts with the original
sources to help us, as was true of the Gospel of Luke with Mark
and Q. Hence the result is more inconclusive. But some broad
facts are clear. One is the use of both oral and written sources.
Another is that Luke himself is a participant in a large part of
the story. Another is the fact of Paul s presence and Epistles.
Another is the stay of Luke in Csesarea and Palestine, when
he had opportunity to learn much about the earlier stages of the
history before he became a Christian. It is plain, therefore, that
Luke had exceptionally good opportunities for obtaining his
torical data for the Acts. And yet the trustworthiness of the
Acts has been more severely criticised than has that of the
Gospel. It is precisely the Acts that has been more helped by
recent discovery and criticism than any other book of the
New Testament. The Gospel of Luke, as we shall see, was
sharply criticised in 3 : 1-3 for alleged historical blunders, but
the Acts was attacked in scores of places. Luke has been
vindicated in nearly all of these instances where once he stood
alone and is entitled to respectful consideration in the rest.

Ramsay 1 holds that the Acts has been the victim of a false
interpretation of the relation of Roman history and Chris
tianity. For long it was assumed that Christianity was not
persecuted by the state before Trajan s famous "Rescript"
about A. D. 112. Hence all documents, like Acts, which
showed evidence of such persecution, were relegated to the
second century. But it is now plain that Pliny and Trajan
are discussing a standing procedure, not a new order or atti
tude. "Yet a long series of critics misunderstood the docu
ments, and rested their theory of early Christian history on
their extraordinary blunder." 2 Ramsay 3 makes it clear how
important this point really is: "This change of view as regards
the attitude of the Roman state toward the Christian Church,
while it affects the whole New Testament, has been the turn
ing-point in the tide of opinion regarding the Acts. That is
the history of Christianity in the Roman Empire; there were
indubitably some attempts to propagate Christianity toward

1 Pauline and Other Studies, p. 195. 2 Ibid.

*IUd., pp. 195 f.

78 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

the east and south, beyond the limits of the empire, but the
author of Acts regards these efforts as unimportant, and omits
them entirely from his view." So, then, "what is urgently
required at the present time in early Christian history is a
completely new start, free from all assumptions, whether on
the critical or on the traditional side." l Paul (Acts 19 : 21)
had an ambition to evangelize the Roman Empire, and Luke
is seized with this conception and carries Paul to Rome, the
capital, where they both are at the time of writing the Acts.
Ramsay 2 explains how his studies in Roman provincial history
in Asia Minor compelled him to see how the Acts "must have
been written in the first century and with admirable knowl
edge. It plunges one into the atmosphere and the circum
stances of the first century; it is out of harmony with the cir
cumstances and spirit of the second century."

The Acts as a whole bears the stamp of one mind, in spite of
the variety of sources, as truly as does Luke s Gospel. We
must think of Luke as drafting the plan of the book to suit his
purpose and using the material that suited his aim. He first
gathered his data and then went to work on his facts. The
result is one of the great books of all time.

2. Personal Experiences of the Author. It is best to begin
with the "we" sections of Acts (16:9-40; 20:5-28:31), for
here Luke himself was an eye-witness (cf . Luke 1:2) of the
story which he tells. He is Paul s companion and minister
for that part of the second journey from Troas to Philippi,
and on the return trip in the third tour from Philippi to Jeru
salem, in Csesarea for two years (most of it), on the voyage to
Rome and for two years there. Here Luke was a participant
in the events and could speak from personal knowledge. We
do not have to think that Luke remained constantly with Paul
during the whole of the two years and more in Csesarea, but he
evidently made Csesarea headquarters and probably heard
Paul make his several defenses in Jerusalem and Csesarea.
Thus we can best understand the great fulness of detail for
these parts of Acts. Luke had the glowing interest of one
who lived through those exciting days. The style is in all
essentials the same in the "we" sections as in the rest of the
Acts, but with an added freedom and vividness.

It is probable that Luke kept a diary for the time that he

1 IUd. } p. 197. 2 Ibid., p. 199.

THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 79

was with Paul and is rewriting that for the Acts. For this
reason Luke retains the "we" and "us." Luke was too care
ful a writer to retain the pronoun if he was using the travel
diary of another person. He was too honest a historian to
seek to create the impression that he was present when he was
not. 1 He was not the kind of man to pose as an eye-witness.
Some preachers are accused of appropriating illustrations and
applying them to their own experiences for rhetorical effect.
Carpenter 2 aptly says : " If he had wanted to pretend, he would
have been clever enough to do it more efficiently. He would
have stated roundly that he had been there. It is true that
he was a literary artist. But one of the first duties of a lit
erary artist is to use language that will convey his meaning
and be understood by those for whom he writes." It is not
necessary to repeat the arguments that prove conclusively that
the "we" sections of Acts are written in the same style as the
rest of the Acts and of the Gospel. Harnack 3 sums the mat
ter up by saying: "In no other part of the Acts of the Apostles
are the peculiarities of vocabulary and style of the author of
the twofold work so accumulated and concentrated as they
are in the "we" sections.

Blass 4 thinks that, whatever is true of the Gospel, for the
Acts there is no need to raise any question concerning the
sources, least of all for the "we" sections. He argues that
Luke was so constantly with various participants in the events.
Ramsay 5 has no patience with the idea that Luke had access
to reliable sources here and there, but not as a whole: "That
way of juggling with the supposed authorities of Luke, too,
has been abandoned since then by all competent scholars.
The idea that the writer of the Acts had good authorities to
rely on for one or two details alone would not now be suggested
or tolerated. That writer had a certain general level of knowl
edge and information and judgment. He has to be estimated
as a whole." That is obviously true, and yet it is pertinent
to show, where possible, the nature of the sources at Luke s
disposal. It is important that we do not expect too much of
the Acts. It is not a biographical monograph with exhaustive

1 Carpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 13.

2 Ibid., p. 14. 3 Date of the Acts and the Gospels, p. 12.
4 Acta Apostolorum, p. 10.

6 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 80.

80 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

details concerning any one character. 1 From Acts 13 : 1 on
the book "becomes practically a biographical sketch of some
phases of Paul s life and work." 2 Note the careful language
of Moffatt. Luke does not aim at a complete narration of all
events about Paul, but he tells what falls in with his purpose.
Von Soden 3 notes that it was a common custom for distin
guished travellers to have a diary kept by some member of the
party as an aid to memory and for future use. It has been
suggested that Xenophon did this for his Anabasis. It is
noteworthy that Luke had the historical insight to keep such
a diary while with Paul. In particular, Luke may have made
notes of Paul s speeches which he heard (see later). Hayes 4
thinks that Luke is a hero-worshipper of the first order, and
but for his devotion to Paul he might never have written the
Acts.

3. Paul. It is certain that Luke was with Paul some five
or six years (at Troas, Philippi, the journey to Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, Csesarea, voyage, Rome), most of the time, if not
all the time. It would have been very strange if Luke did not
consult Paul at all about matters relating to their companion
ship and fellowship. It is here assumed, of course, that Luke
wrote the Acts in Rome before Paul was set free from the first
Roman imprisonment. Paul may have had notes of some of
his speeches on which Luke could draw for the course of his
argument if his own notes were deficient. He could ask Paul
to fill in a gap here or there. He could use Paul s recollection
to supplement and to check his own memory concerning de
tails. It is incongruous to think that Luke was with Paul
while writing the book and yet failed to avail himself of Paul s
store of knowledge. This remark applies not only to Paul s
supplementing Luke s diary or recollection of the "we" sec
tions, but also to the rest of the Paul narrative.

On the hypothesis that Luke was Paul s companion, Lake 5
sees clearly that "if this be so, we have for the rest of the
Paul narrative a source ready to our hand in the personal
information obtained by Luke from St. Paul himself, or from
other companions of St. Paul whom he met in his society. This

1 Chase, Credibility of the Gospel and Acts, p. 24.

2 Intr. to Lit. of the N. T., p. 293. 3 Intr. to N. T., p. 243.

4 Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 335.

5 Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Church.

THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 81

may cover as much as Acts 9 : 1-30; 11 : 27-30; 12 : 25-31, or
even more." Most assuredly, and we must include the story
of the first mission tour (13 and 14), since Luke was not pres
ent, and the great conference in Jerusalem and after events in
Antioch (15). It is inconceivable that Luke would fail to get
the benefit of Paul s first-hand knowledge of all this period if
Paul was at hand in Rome with him. Paul may not have
been Luke s only source for this period, but he did have Paul
as a reservoir of information on all disputed points. Carpen
ter feels that "a certain amount is surely from Paul himself." l
We do not have to know how much. The important thing is
for us to recognize that Luke wrote in the very atmosphere of
his hero. Out of the Pauline environment then came both the
Gospel of Luke and the Acts. 2 Luke was with Paul during the
time when he was finishing the Judaizing controversy and was
full of the Gnostic controversy. He saw Paul at the height of
his powers. It is small wonder that in the Gospel and the
Acts Luke reflects the Pauline conception of Christ. And yet
Luke preserves the historical perspective. The early chapters
of Acts faithfully preserve the primitive Christology, in essence
the same as that of Paul. Carpenter 3 thinks that Luke the
physician would be deeply interested "in the enthusiastic con
versation of the friend, who was so bad a patient, so lovable a
man." He would note the power of the Spirit in Paul, his
fondness for the fellowship of his friends, his doctrine of Christ,
his world outlook, his doctrine of the Kingdom, his eschatology.
Paul could be of service to Luke for the work in Thessalonica,
Athens, Corinth, Ephesus (Acts 17-19). We do not have to
think that Luke simply gives Paul s view of things. He used
various sources. Silas and Timothy could supplement much
for this period. And there was Titus for the Corinthian
troubles, with whom Luke seems to have been associated
(brother and delegate). Aristarchus was with Luke and Paul
for the journey to Jerusalem and to Rome (Acts 19 : 29; 20 : 4;
27:2; Col. 4:10; Philemon 24). Luke had all these to re
inforce Paul and himself for much of the Acts. Ramsay 4 is
willing to admit that in Acts 19 : 2-16 Luke drops from his high

I 0p. tit., p. 11. *!Ud.

3 Op. dt. } p. 16. Harnack (Acts of the Apostles, p. 232) thinks that
Luke relied on oral testimony for all this part of the Acts.

4 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 272,

82 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

standard and reports "a popular tale," but he is not sure.
Better give Luke the benefit of the doubt for the present, at
any rate.

Did Luke have the help of Paul s Epistles? Some of them
were written before Acts. If Acts appeared in A. D. 63 or 64,
certainly I and II Thessalonians had been written (A. D.
51-53); I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans (55-57) were
also accessible to Luke. Philippians, Philemon, Colossians,
and Ephesians (61-63) were written from Rome, apparently
while Luke was there, though he seems to have been absent
when Philippians was despatched (2:20). But scholars are
not agreed as to whether Luke knew Paul s Epistles or not.
Lake 1 bluntly says: "There is no reason to suppose that Luke
was acquainted with any of the Pauline Epistles. There is
nothing in the Acts which resembles a quotation, and in relat
ing facts alluded to in the Epistles there is more often differ
ence than agreement, even though it be true that the differ
ence is not always serious." This is the opinion of most
scholars that Luke had not read Paul s Epistles. It is only
insisted here that he could have done so in so far as the date is
concerned. His own movements would play some part in the
matter. Ramsay, 2 however, says: "But personally I am dis
posed to think that Luke knew the letters, though he does
not make them his authority, because he had still higher and
better, viz., Paul s own conversation." With this opinion I
cordially agree. Luke had probably read the Epistles (not the
Pastorals), but he did not have them with him as he wrote.
He made no effort to copy them or to square his narrative with
them.

Some difficulties exist (cf. Gal. 2 : 1-10 and Acts 15 : 1-30),
which will come up for discussion later. One must always
bear in mind the purpose of Luke in Acts and the aim of Paul
in his Epistles. In Gal. 2 Paul is discussing his independence
of the Twelve, not his visits to Jerusalem. He is describing
a private interview with the great Trio (Peter, James and
John) in Jerusalem, not the public meetings of the whole Con
ference, as in Acts 15. Thus the two accounts can be recon
ciled if the same meeting is intended in both passages. Some
take Gal. 2 : 1-10 to refer to another visit. Harnack 3 finds a
special Antiochian source for Acts 15 : 1-30.

1 Hastings s Ap. Church. 2 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 52.

3 Acts of the Apostles, p. 199.

THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 83

But there is no denying the light that the Acts and the
Epistles throw upon each other, as Paley long ago showed in
his Horce Paulines. "Acts rightly understood is the best com
mentary of the letters of Paul, and the letters on the Acts. If
Luke had never known or read these letters, then all the more
remarkable is it as a proof of the truth and historicity of both
that the agreement is so perfect." 1 Harnack 2 has shown
thirty-nine striking coincidences between Paul s Epistles and
Acts 1-14 in the section before Luke came into contact with
Paul. The agreement, Harnack argues, "is so extensive and
so detailed as to exclude all wild hypotheses concerning those
passages of the Acts that are without attestation in those
Epistles." 3 And yet Luke has remained himself everywhere. 4
His style is his own, his intellectual independence is main
tained, he is not obsessed by Paul so as to lose his perspective.
"One of the most assured results of recent research is that he
was not a Paulinist masquerading as a historian." 5 The spirit
of Paul is in the Acts and Paul s picture is drawn on bold can
vas, but Luke has drawn the portrait in his own manner.

4. Other First-Hand Reporters. It is certain that Luke was
Paul s companion and so had his own notes and recollections
for that portion of the history. It is certain, also, that he
enjoyed the benefit of Paul s own suggestions for the same
period and for the Paul narrative, where Luke was not a par
ticipant. Besides, Luke had access to others of the Pauline
circle, Aristarchus, Silas, Erastus, Timothy, Titus, Gaius,
Sopater, Tychicus, Trophimus, Mark, Demas, Epaphras,
Mnason, and possibly Barnabas, Symeon Niger, Lycius of
Cyrene, and Manaen. We are certain of all in this Pauline
group save the names beginning with Barnabas. If the Bezan
text is correct in Acts 1 1 : 28, then Luke knew Barnabas and
all those named in Acts 13 : 1. Thus we can see Luke s sources
for two-thirds of the Acts, for nearly all of chapters 9-28 (ex
cepting Peter s ministry in Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea, and Jeru
salem). That of Barnabas in Csesarea and Jerusalem could
have come from Paul, if not from Barnabas.

So far so good. But what about the rest ? " The problems

1 Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 52.

2 Acts of the Apostles, pp. 264-274.

3 Ibid., p. 272. &lt; IUd., p. 274.
6 Moffatt, Mr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 281.

84 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

presented by the earlier chapters are much more complicated." l
Here again we are confronted with the problem of oral or
written sources. Lake 2 holds that it "seems quite impossible
to say whether he was using written sources." There is, un
doubtedly, an Antiochian tradition and a Jerusalem tradition
for the material that Luke employs for chapters 1-12 (save
the story of Paul s conversion, 9 : 1-30). But it cannot as yet
be shown that it was all written unless C. C. Torrey is right in
his theory of an Aramaic document for chapters 1-15, about
which we shall have more directly.

But we can feel our way backward in Acts by means of
persons with whom Luke came into personal contact. Cor
nelius, if still living, could certainly tell Luke of the work of
grace in Csesarea when Peter came. We know that Luke met
James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem (Acts 21 : 18) and
the other elders. James was present during the days of the
great Pentecostal outpouring (Acts 1 : 14) and could give Luke
valuable data for this epochal event. It is not known that
Luke met Peter in Jerusalem or in Rome, though both are
possible occurrences. In that case, Peter himself would be
Luke s main source. But we do know that Luke was with
Mark in Rome. Mark, as the disciple of Peter and cousin of
Barnabas, could furnish testimony concerning chapters 9 : 31-
13 : 13. And there were Philip and his daughters, who dwelt
in Csesarea. We know that Luke made a visit to this home
(Acts 21 : 8) on his way to Jerusalem. During the two years
in Csesarea Luke had abundant opportunities to learn from
Philip the story of his work in Samaria and Philistia (chapter
8) as well as the appointment of the seven and the career
of Stephen (chapters 6 and 7). Besides, Paul was present at
the delivery of Stephen s speech and at his stoning (Acts
8 : 1 ; 26 : 10) and could help Luke materially at this point. In
all these instances notes may have been made concerning the
various sections, and turned over to Luke, or he may have
made notes of his conversations. There is no way to decide.

There remains the period covered by chapters 1-5. It is
in this section, in particular, that Luke confronts supernatural
phenomena, and where modern writers find most difficulty in
crediting his narrative. Carpenter 3 is sure that Luke worked

* Lake, Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Church. 2 Ibid.

3 Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 23.

THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 85

backward from Paul to Pentecost. He agrees with Doctor
Figgis "that it is right to begin history at this end," as, he
argues, " Peter and Paul did in their preaching." " The thinker
instantly works backward." This is an important point and
confronts us squarely as we face Acts 1-5. "Did S. Paul, at
his conversion, or before, or after, engage for his own satisfac
tion in any kind of historical research? And if so, how thor
oughly did he (and, we may add, S. Luke) carry through the
process?" 1 Paul knows the fundamental facts of the life,
death and resurrection of Jesus, whether he obtained them by
personal acquaintance with Jesus or from others. 2 Paul stands
in the path of the "Christ-Myth theory" and in the way of
the idea of Loisy 3 that "Pauline Christianity was simply a
mystery-cult, and that Paul cared no more, and perhaps be
lieved no more, about the historicity of Jesus than the Osiris-
worshipper cared or believed about the historical existence of
Osiris." 4 As to Pentecost, Carpenter 5 feels certain that "the
physician as an educated man, with at least something of the
historical spirit, would inquire how and when the immanence
of the Spirit in the community had begun."

Harnack 6 thinks that nothing clear can be learned concerning
the sources of Luke for the early chapters. He looks with
suspicion on chapter 1 as a late legend, and sees a doublet in
chapters 2 and 3-5, as does Lake. Harnack manifestly has a
lower opinion of Acts 1-12 than he has for the worth of 13-28.
Ramsay 7 admits the difficulty raised for modern people con
cerning the miracles and demons in passages like Acts 5 : 12
and 8:7. " It is matter for a special book to study the author
ities whom Luke used for the first part of his history." 8 He
argues for patience about psychic phenomena, and pleads that
Luke must be credited with special interest in such cases, since
he was a physician and a scientist. As a historian he would be
careful to weigh the cases that he records. Ramsay 9 thinks
that Luke used some official data or acta of the early Christian

1 Ibid., p. 25. 2 Christianity According to S. Luke, pp. 28-32.

8 Hibbert Journal, Oct., 1911.

4 Carpenter, op. cit., p. 25. 6 Ibid., p. 21:

6 Acts of the Apostles, p. 163.

7 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 200.

8 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 205.

Expositor, VII, 7, pp. 172 f., 262 f., 358 f., 450 f.

86 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

community in Jerusalem for the record in Acts 1-5 with the full
report of Peter s great sermon at Pentecost, "which is in some
ways one of the most archaic passages in the New Testament." l
Ramsay holds that Philip could have reported Peter s speech,
though hardly Acts 2 : 1-13.

The earlier chapters of Acts show plainly enough that Luke
was not a participant. There is care for accuracy about the
historical origins of Christianity. "The subject in them is
handled in a vague way with a less vigorous and nervous
grasp." 2 As compared with the Gospel, Luke "had not the
advantage of formal historical narratives such as he mentions
for the period described in the First Book (the Gospel)." 3
However, one is not entitled to discredit Luke s narrative in
Acts 1-5, since he had ready access to numerous converts at
the great Pentecost. Prejudice against Luke in these chapters
is primarily prejudice against the supernatural demonstration
of the power of the Holy Spirit and is on a par with prejudice
against the Virgin Birth of Jesus and his Resurrection from
the dead, all of which events are recorded in Luke s Gospel
after due research and reflection. We shall see whether Luke
is a mere recorder of tales, like Herodotus.

5. The Theory of an Aramaic Document for Chapters 1-15.
We know that Luke was acquainted with Aramaic, from his
use of original sources for Luke 1 and 2 (except 1 : 1-4). In
Acts 1 : 19 and 9 : 36 Luke translates Aramaic words. " Knowl
edge of Aramaic and the ability to translate an easy Aramaic
text may well be assumed in a native of Antioch, and one who
was for many years a companion of St. Paul." 4 Harnack con
siders the results of present knowledge "ambiguous": "There
are, on the one hand, weighty reasons for the conclusion that
St. Luke in the first half of the Acts has translated an Aramaic
source, and yet it is impossible to refute the theory that he
was only dependent upon oral information." 5 Harnack feels
sure that Luke did not follow a single Aramaic source. He is
positive 6 that Luke did not follow a written Greek source for

1 Lake, Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Church.

2 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 19. 3 Ibid., p. 20.

4 Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 119. McLachlan (St. Luke; the Man
and His Work) devotes chap. II to "Luke the Linguist." He argues that
Luke knew something of Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew, but was not expert
in them as in Greek.

6 Ibid., p. 119. 6 Ibid., p. 116.

THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 87

this part of the Acts. Lake, 1 per contra, is confident that Luke
had a written Greek source for Acts 3 and 4, possibly 5, and
probably 8 : 5-40. So the doctors disagree again.

Blass 2 suggests that Mark wrote out the first narrative of the
apostolic period in Aramaic, and that Luke employed this
Aramaic document for Acts 1-12. "I say that the language of
the Acts is markedly different from that of the later chapters:
in the former Aramaisms abound, in the latter they are com
paratively very scarce; from these facts I argue that the second
part is an independent work by Luke, but the former depends
on an Aramaic source." 3 Blass thinks it doubtful if Luke
knew Aramaic, and thinks it likely that he had an interpreter
for Mark s book. Nestle 4 had suggested a Hebrew document
for the early part of Acts. Moffatt 8 states his view thus:
"Oral tradition of a heterogeneous and even of a legendary
character may be held to explain most, if not all, of the data.
There is fair ground for conjecturing, however, that Luke used
and translated an Aramaic source." But no one has been
able to show specific Aramaisms to any considerable extent.
The first half of Acts seems as distinctly Lukan as the second.

C. C. Torrey argued in 1912 that "the compiler of the Third
Gospel was an accomplished translator of both Hebrew and
Aramaic." 6 He returns to the subject in his monograph, "The
Composition and Date of Acts" (1916), and attempts to show
that Acts 1-15 is translated from an Aramaic document by
Luke, the author of the "we" sections and of the Third Gos
pel. "The whole book, however, shows unmistakable uni
formity of vocabulary and phraseology, so that it is obvious
(to him who recognizes the Semitic source) that the author of
16-28 was the translator of 1-15." Professor Torrey proceeds
to give what he considers numerous " translation Aramaisms,"
not Hebraisms. "The truth is that the language of all fifteen
chapters is translation-Greek through and through, generally
preserving even the order of words." 7 It may be admitted at
once that, if Torrey proves his case, the question of the sources

1 Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Church.

2 Philology of the Gospels, pp. 141, 193 f., 201.

3 Ibid., p. 194. 4 Expositor, 1895, p. 238.

5 Intr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 290.

6 Studies in the History of Religions, Presented to Crawford H. Toy, pp.
269-317.

7 Op. tit., p. 7.

88 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

of Acts is greatly simplified. The Aramaic document (Mark ?),
Luke and Paul would cover the whole story. It must be said,
however, that Torrey apparently weakens his argument by
what he calls "especially striking cases of mistranslation in
Acts 1-15." l The Aramaic list is wholly hypothetical. The
supposed mistranslation is not very convincing. Burkitt re
views Torrey s pamphlet in the July, 1919, Journal of Theologi
cal Studies. He says (p. 326) : " I venture to submit that Pro
fessor Torrey has not produced a compelling demonstration,"
though he recognizes "an occasional use by St. Luke of Ara
maic sources, written or oral" (p. 329). This is precisely my
own feeling in the matter. Besides, Torrey (pp. 14 ff.) presses
entirely too far the use of "his name" in Acts 3 : 16 as "a bit
of popular superstition," "a certain quasi-magical power in
the Name of Jesus." The trouble with this view is that in
the Septuagint and in the papyri "name" occurs in the sense
of "person" with no necessary "magical" sense. 2 Torrey
claims too much and tries to prove too much. He puts all his
eggs in one basket. But, as the case now stands, it must be
admitted that an Aramaic document (or documents) is possi
ble as one of the sources for the early chapters of Acts. I can
not yet agree that Luke confined himself to one document for
the early chapters of Acts when he had access to so many per
sons who knew various parts of the story.

Torrey s argument for an Aramaic source for Acts 1-15 has
started discussion on an extensive scale. Foakes-Jackson in
the Harvard Theological Renew for October, 1917, feels con
vinced by Torrey s arguments that there were Aramaic sources
for the first part of Acts. " That nothing but Aramaic sources
were used is, I consider, not proven. That there was only one
document appears to me extremely doubtful" (p. 360). He
does think, however, that we must agree that Acts was com
pleted by A. D. 64, and hence that Luke made no use of Jose-
phus, and that the Acts is in no sense a Tendenz writing (p. 352).
In the January, 1918, issue of the same journal W. J. Wilson
says of Torrey s work (p. 74): "By his demonstration of a

1 Op. at., pp. 10-22.

2 Cf . Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 146, 197. An inscription of Caria
has efc rb TOO 9soO Svoywc, where a purchaser acts as the representative of
Zeus. The papyri show ovojjuz in sense of person. Cf. B. U. 113. 11 (143
A. D.), !*&lt;fcoT(p 3vonTt. So Fay, p. 531, ii. 9 f . (Ill A. D.), *pb? Ixcwrev Svo{jux.

THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS 89

document in Aramaic, underlying Acts 1 : lb-15 : 35 and trans
lated by Luke with painful fidelity into Greek, he has opened
up a whole new field for the criticism of the Book of Acts."
He then proceeds to make "some observations" on the basis of
the Aramaic source. In the Harvard Theological Review for
July, 1918, W. J. Wilson replies to Foakes- Jackson in defense
of Torrey s plea for a single Aramaic document for Acts 1-15.
He concludes that "the argument for the new theory appears
very strong indeed" (p. 335). Bacon accepted Torrey s theory
as a demonstration (American Journal of Theology, January,
1918). In the January, 1919, issue of this quarterly Torrey
discusses "Fact and Fancy in Theories Concerning Acts" and
answers the criticisms of his critics. As has already been
noted, Burkitt replies to Torrey in the July, 1919, Journal of
Theological Studies. So the matter rests for the present. 1
However it may be decided, the whole discussion has strength
ened the argument for the early date and historical worth of
the Acts, particularly the early chapters which were mainly
under attack.

1 McLachlan (St. Luke, p. 67) thinks that the Aramaic source is es
tablished.

CHAPTER VII

THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE

"Luke the Beloved Physician" (Col. 4: 14)
"Physician, Heal Thyself" (Luke 4 : 23)

Can it be shown that Luke deserves to be called a man of
science ?

1. The Point at Issue. In Chapter I. 4 it was shown that
the companion of Paul who wrote the Gospel and Acts was a
physician. The only known friend and companion of Paul
who was a physician is Luke. The proof seems complete, but
it is now argued by Lake and by Cadbury that Hobart and
Harnack make too much of the medical terms in the Lukan
writings. Lake 1 sums up his view thus: "That Luke was a
physician is argued by Harnack following up and greatly
improving on the methods of Hobart on the ground of his
use of medical language. The argument is, of course, cumula
tive, and cannot be epitomized. It is beyond doubt that
Luke frequently employs language which can be illustrated
from Galen and other medical writers. The weak point is
that no sufficient account has been taken of the fact that much
of this language can probably be shown from the pages of
Lucian, Dion of Prusa, etc., to have been part of the vocabu
lary of any educated Greek."

It should be admitted at once that the proof that Luke wrote
the Gospel and Acts is complete without the linguistic argu
ment concerning medical terms. That argument simply adds
to the general effect. We know from Paul that Luke was a
physician, and we are naturally interested in a physician s use
of medical language. Other people employ medical terms.
We find such language in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and
John. Lake and Cadbury rather miss the mark in their reply
to Hobart and Harnack. It is not the mere tabulation of
medical words that have entered the general vocabulary that
is pertinent. "When a physician writes an historical work it
does not necessarily follow that his profession shows itself in

1 Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Church.
90

THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 91

his writing; yet it is only natural for one to look for traces of
the author s medical profession in such a work." 1 Harnack
notes six ways in which a physician will be likely to betray
his profession. Medical points may determine the narrative
(disease and its treatment), preference may be shown for
stories of healing, the language may be colored by technical
medical terms, traces of medical diagnosis may occur, medical
phraseology may appear apart from cases of healing, and where
the writer is an eye-witness medical traits are particularly
noticeable. Harnack holds that in all these ways Luke reveals
his medical side. Hobart divides his book, The Medical Lan
guage of St. Luke, into two parts ("Medical Language Em
ployed in the Account of Miracles of Healing" and that "Used
Outside of Medical Subjects"). He gives numerous details
from Greek medical writers.

Cadbury 2 argues that the medical bias in Luke s vocabulary
must be more considerable than in that of non-medical writers
like Lucian to be of value as an argument. The reply is that
it is not merely a matter of vocabulary, but of medical interest,
that crops out in incidental ways. Jerome (Comm. on Isaiah
43:6) says that ancient writers assert that Luke "was very
learned in the medical art." 3 Naylor 4 finds Luke the " trained
physician and a Greek probably the only one in the Christian
Church in his time." He concludes that Luke differed widely
from "the spirit and teaching of Greek medicine from Hippoc
rates down to his own day " because he reports cases of demo
niacal possession and cure. But Homan observes that "he
nowhere claims for himself the possession of miraculous powers
or intimates their exercise by him." Homan 5 adds that Luke s
report of miracles was "a possible compromise between the
science of the physician and the faith of the disciple." But
Homan 6 attempts to show "that Luke must be ranked as one
of the choicest medical minds known to any age." "In short,
it is felt that the time has come when physicians should take

1 Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 175.

2 Style and Literary Method of Luke, p. 50.

3 Medicines artis fuisse sdentissimum.

4 "Luke the Physician and Ancient Medicine" (Hibbert Journal, Octo
ber, 1909, p. 40).

6 Luke the Greek Physician, p. 7.
6 Luke the Greek Physician, p. 13.

92 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

steps to reclaim Luke as one of their own in the name of that
profession of which he was one of the greatest ornaments."

If it be said that it is merely the wild assumption of a mod
ern apologist to say that Luke was in any true sense a scientist,
it is refreshing to note some remarks by the late Sir William
Osier, M.D., F.R.S., Regius Professor of Medicine in the Uni
versity of Oxford, in a recent (May 16, 1919) presidential
address before the Classical Association on The Old Humanities
and the New Science, in which he says: "And the glories of
Greek science should be opened in a sympathetic way to
Greats men" (p. 28). "Few Greats men, I fear, could tell
why Hippocrates is a living force to-day, or why a modern
scientific physician would feel more at home with Erasistratus
and Herophilus at Alexandria, or with Galen at Pergamos,
than at any period in our story up to, say, Harvey" (p. 19).
"In biology Aristotle speaks for the first time the language of
modern science, and indeed he seems to have been first and
foremost a biologist, and his natural history studies influenced
profoundly his sociology, his psychology, and his philosophy
in general" (p. 20). Sir William Osier laments modern igno
rance of the Greek scientists and physicians. "And yet the
methods of these men exorcised vagaries and superstitions
from the human mind, and pointed to a clear knowledge of
the laws of nature" (p. 20). "To observation and seasoned
thought the Greek added experiment, but never fully used it
in biology, an instrument which has made science productive,
and to which the modern world owes its civilization" (p. 24).
Luke lived in the atmosphere of Greek science. But Luke
cannot be taken from Christ, even in the name of science.
He brought his science and laid it at the feet of Jesus, the
Great Physician. He preached the Gospel and practised the
science of medicine, as many a man has done since Luke s day.
But now let us see the illustrations of Luke s medical knowl
edge in his writings.

2. Changes from Mark s Account. Harnack 1 has grouped
the examples from Hobart with great skill. The point to
observe here is whether Luke made any changes that a physi
cian would be likely to desire. We have seen already (Chap
ter I. 4) that in Luke 8 : 43 Mark s caustic comment that the
poor woman "had spent all that she had, and was nothing
1 Luke the Physician, pp. 182-8.

THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 93

bettered, but rather grew worse" (Mark 5 : 26), has been soft
ened to "she was not able to be healed by any * (a chronic case
for which physicians were not to blame). But this striking
case does not stand alone.

In the account of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mark 1 : 26
= Luke 4 : 35) Luke adds "having done him no hurt," showing
the physician s interest in the details of the case. Luke also
noted the fall of the man, "threw him down in the midst."
One can observe all through the Gospel Luke s pleasure in pic
turing Christ as the physician.

The healing of Simon s mother-in-law (Mark 1 : 30 f . =
Luke 4 : 38 f . = Matt. 8 : 14 f .) has some striking touches.
Luke alone notes that she "was holden with a great fever." 1
Precisely this medical phrase of "great fever" occurs in Galen
and Hippocrates. Galen says that Greek physicians divided
fevers into "great" 2 and "small." 3 Luke, like a doctor, adds
also two items concerning Christ s method of treatment. " And
he stood over her," 4 as if in careful contemplation of the symp
toms of the patient by way of diagnosis. One thinks of the
famous picture "The Doctor," wherein the physician sits
with his head in his hand and watches the rapid breathing of
the sick child on the bed. Luke adds "and rebuked the
fever," showing that Jesus spoke words of authority and cheer
like the wise physician. Jesus spoke not for mere psychologi
cal effect on the patient, but also to show his instant mastery
of the disease. So Luke observes that the fever left her "im
mediately." 6 It is not a matter of vocabulary here, but we
note the physician s interest and insight that give these touches
to the story not present in Mark and Matthew.

The "leper" (Mark 1:40 = Luke 5:12 = Matt. 8:2) is
described by Luke as "a man full of leprosy," 6 a very bad
case. "This particular is given only by the beloved physi
cian. His face and his hands would be covered by ulcers and
sores, so that every one could see that the hideous disease
was at a very advanced stage." 7 In such a severe case,
strange to say, the law allowed the leper to have freedom to
come and go (cf. Lev. 13:12f.). Once again the physician
describes the case as Mark and Matthew do not.

VO&gt; ai-rijq.
vfjp xX-fjpTjs Xlicpa?. 7 Plummer, in loco.

94 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

In Luke 5:18 (= Mark 2:3 = Matt. 9:2) we have the
phrase " a man that was palsied " l rather than the popular
term "paralytic" 2 of Mark and Matthew. "St. Luke s use
is in strict agreement with that of medical writers." 3 Luke
never employs the popular term for this disease, but always
the medical phrase.

In the story of the man with the withered hand (Luke 6 : 6
= Mark 3:1 = Matt. 12 : 10), Luke, with a physician s eye for
details of diagnosis, notes that it was his "right hand." So
in Luke 22:50 (= Mark 14:47 = Matt. 26:51) Luke first
notes it is the "right ear" of the servant of the high priest
that is cut off. He was followed later in this item by John
(18 : 10), who also gives the name Malchus. But in the case
of Malchus Luke alone adds "And he touched his ear, and
healed him" (Luke 22 : 51), a miracle of surgery that evidently
interested him.

In the account of the Gadarene demoniac (Luke 8 : 27 =
Mark 5:2 = Matt. 8:28), Luke alone observes that "for a
long time he had worn no clothes" (the physician s care again).
Both Mark (5 : 15) and Luke (8 : 35) note that, when cured,
he is "clothed and in his right mind."

In the story of the raising of Jairus s daughter (Luke 8 : 55
= Mark 5 : 41 f. = Matt. 9 : 25), Luke alone gives the detail
that Jesus "commanded that something be given her to eat."
Once more the physician s interest in the child s welfare appears
(cf. Acts 9: 18).

In the case of the epileptic boy (Luke 9 : 38 f . = Mark 9 : 17 f .
= Matt. 17 : 15), each Gospel describes the symptoms differ
ently. It was a hard case, that baffled the disciples. Luke
represents the father as beseeching Jesus "to look upon my
son," 4 as if for a fresh diagnosis of the case after the failure of
the disciples. Alas, how many of us know what it is to see
the consulting physician called in ! Luke adds the pathetic
plea, "for he is mine only child." Hobart adds also: "It is
worthy of note that Aretseus, a physician about Luke s time,
admits the possibility of this disease being produced by dia
bolical agency."

8 Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke, p. 6.
4 impxfclxzi. Hobart cites this word and ^yt? dcicoxwpeZ as medical terms
here.

THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 95

Once more Luke (18 : 25 = Mark 10 : 25 = Matt. 19 : 24) em
ploys a different word for " needle," l the surgeon s needle, not
the ordinary needle, 2 as in Mark and Matthew. Luke employs
the word that Galen uses for the surgeon s needle, a distinct
trace of medical authorship.

The point about these changes lies in the professional inter
est of the physician, not in the linguistic improvements of an
educated man. Luke did make many such changes because
of his literary taste, but another explanation clearly holds
here. The argument stands, but it does not stand alone,
strong as it is.

3. Items Peculiar to Luke s Gospel. Luke reveals a pro
fessional interest in medical matters in the portions of the
Gospel which he alone has. Hayes 3 has made an admirable
summary of this argument. Luke was a medical evangelist
and had a vital interest in both forms of the work of Christ
(teaching and healing). "And he sent them forth to preach
the Kingdom of God, and to heal the sick" (Luke 9:2). So
Christ commanded the Twelve as he sent them on the tour of
Galilee, as Matthew (10 : 8) also gives: "Heal the sick, raise the
dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons." But Luke alone
gives the following. To the seventy Jesus said: "And heal
the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The Kingdom
of God is come nigh unto you" (Luke 10 : 9). When the sev
enty returned from their tour of Judea, they say to Jesus:
"Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy name"
(Luke 10:17).

In Christ s Messianic sermon at Nazareth he had quoted
Isaiah 40: 1 f., and applied to himself the mission "to preach
good tidings to the poor" and "recovery of sight to the blind."
Luke makes a specialty of the double mission of Jesus to heal
both soul and body. In harmony with this conception it must
be noted that Luke alone gives Christ s proverb, "Physician,
heal thyself" (Luke 4: 23). Galen speaks of a physician who
should have cured himself before practising on his patients.
The saying was evidently common with physicians and Christ s
use of it interested Luke. We to-day say that a doctor ought
to take his own medicine. The Chinese do not pay physicians

1 peX6viQ. A magic papyrus (P. Lond., 121, 442, 3 A. D.) has the more
general use of the word.

2 3 Synoptic Gospels and Acts, pp. 224 f.

96 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

if the patient gets sick, but only when he is well. The Chris
tian doctor to-day in China has an open door to the souls of
the people.

Luke uses a number of general expressions, as do the other
Gospels, that picture the vast extent of Christ s work of heal
ing (cf. Luke 4 : 40 f . ; 5 : 15 f . ; 6 : 17-19; 7 : 21 ; 13 : 32). He
has six miracles not in the other Gospels, and all but one (the
draft of fishes, 5:1-11) are miracles of healing (the son of
the widow of Nain, 7:11-17; the woman with the spirit of
infirmity, 13:10-17; the man with the dropsy, 14:1-6; the
cleansing of the ten lepers, 17 : 11-19; the restoration of Mal-
chus s ear, 22:51).

In each instance we see signs of the physician s love of de
tails about the case and the cure. The son of the widow of
Nain "sat up" in the bier like a patient in bed, to the con
sternation of the pall-bearers (Luke 7:15f.). The word for
"sat up" 1 is used by medical writers in the intransitive sense
for sitting up in bed. 2

In the case of the woman with the spirit of infirmity Luke
gives an exact description of her disease (curvature of the
spine) and of the cure in technical language: "She was bowed
together, 3 and could in no wise lift herself up." 4 "And imme
diately she was made straight." 5 This verb is common in the
Septuagmt, but medical writers employ it for "to straighten,
to put into natural position, abnormal or dislocated parts of
the body." 6

The "dropsical man" 7 (Luke 14: 2) is described by a word
that does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, though
this adjective as a substantive, as in Luke, "is the usual way
in medical language of denoting a person suffering from
dropsy." 8 Hobart cites examples from Hippocrates, Dios-
corides, Galen.

1 dtvex8c&lt;jev. In a Christian letter of 4 c. A. D. we have dcvaxaBeaSscsa used
of a convalescent woman who is still sickly. P. Oxy., VI, 939, 25.

2 Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke, pp. 11 f. So Hippocrates
(Prcenot. 37) has dvaxaO^etv (Jo6Xea6ac tfcv voaeovTa TYJ? v6oou

4 dvaxityat. Note same root. For el? tb iwtvreX^, see Heb. 7 : 25. There
is a play on the words dtvca&^ac and auvx&xtouoa. In Luke 21 : 28 Jesus em
ploys dvax6tpate with SrofcpotTe. See P. Par., 47, 23 ff. for similar use, "a very
grandiloquent, but ill-spelt letter" (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the
Greek N. T., p. 35).

6 dtvG&gt;p6u&gt;8Tj. 6 Hobart, op, cit., p. 22o 7

8 Hobart, op. cU. t p. 24.

THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 97

In the healing of the lepers (Luke 17 : 11-19) Luke uses the
ordinary term "leper," 1 not "full of leprosy," as in 5:12.
Hobart 2 thinks that Luke, by the use of these two ways of
describing the disease that had three forms, 3 according to Hip
pocrates, means to draw a distinction in accord with the Hip-
pocratic diagnosis. The ten lepers had the milder form of
the disease.

It has already been stated that Luke first mentions the
healing of Malchus s ear (Luke 22:51). Jesus "touched the
ear, not the place where the ear had been" (Plummer, in loco),
and thus Luke means to record the " solitary miracle of surgery "
in the New Testament, again with the physician s interest in
such a case. It was necessary for Jesus to undo the result of
Peter s rash act to show that he was not the leader of danger
ous persons.

Luke alone records the parable of the Good Samaritan
(Luke 10 : 30-37) with its account of the care of the wounded
traveller. Modern hospitals carry out the point of this story
which caught Luke s heart, and largely because of what Jesus
said. Hobart 4 quotes Galen as saying "that it was not un
usual for persons when seized with illness on a journey to take
refuge in inns. Galen, too, uses the word * half-dead 5 in de
scribing their case." This word occurs here only in the New
Testament (see 4 Mace. 4:11). But Wellhausen sets aside
the medical details in the story by saying: "Into a wound one
pours oil, but not oil and wine." But Wellhausen is set at
naught by Hippocrates, who recommended for wounds "anoint
ing with oil and wine." 6 Hobart 7 observes that "wine and oil
were usual remedies for sores, wounds, etc., and also used as
internal medicine." The words 8 for binding up, wounds, pour
ing, are all common as medical terms.

In the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16 : 19-31)
a number of medical terms appear. Lazarus was "full of
sores." 9 The word is peculiar to Luke in the New Testament,

1 Xexp6 ? . 2 Op. tit., p. 5. 8 fifths, Xe6xij,

4 Op. tit., p. 27. 6 -^t8avfc.

6 Mosh. Mul. 656, cftefya? IXafcp seal oTvtp. See P. Petr., II, 25 (a) M for
use of xpfotv for "the lotion for a sick horse" (Moulton and Milligan, Vo
cabulary), in opposition to the view that &lt;JXe(^w was used for profane an
ointing and xpta for sacred uses only.

7 Op. tit., p. 28, 8 *&lt;jcTaS4o&gt;,

98 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

and is "the regular medical term for to be ulcerated." 1 Hip
pocrates has a treatise on "ulcers." 2 "The physician thinks
of the absence of medical help: the dogs licked his sores." 3
The dogs gave "the only attention, and, so to speak, medical
dressing, which his sores received" (St. Cyril). The words
for "cool" 4 and being "in anguish" 5 are common in medical
writers, the latter for pain and the former for alleviation.

It is now evident that Luke has betrayed in his Gospel the
habits of mind of a physician. There is no straining after
effect in this argument. It is cumulative and overpowering.

4. Medical Matters in Acts. How is it in the Acts ? Does
Luke reveal his professional interest to the same extent here?
To this question we now turn. As in the Gospel, so in the
Acts, Luke has general statements concerning the great num
ber of cures wrought by the Apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 5 : 16)
and by Paul in Ephesus (Acts 19: 11). Harnack 6 thinks that
"this invariable disposition to see in the miracles of healing
the chief function of the mighty forces of the new religion,
and at the same time on each occasion to distinguish with
anxious care between ordinary sick folk and the possessed/
points to a physician as the author." Ramsay 7 criticises Har
nack for being "too purely verbal," and for having "too little
hold upon realities and facts" in his treatment of Luke. There
is something in this indictment, but Harnack sees dearly the
weight of Hobart s proof that a physician wrote the Gospel
and the Acts. Ramsay 8 is right, also, in seeing that Hobart s
proof stands in spite of his overstatements here and there.
"The valuelessness of one detail, the lightness of one stone,
does not take away from the strength and the weight of the
other details, though it may annoy and mislead the hasty
reader who judges by a sample, and by chance or design takes
the poorest." In cumulative evidence one feels the force of
the whole. In this argument we have simply selected a few of
the most striking examples given by Hobart. These hold true,
whatever is true of the rest. And these prove the point.

1 Hobart, op. tit., p. 31. 2 e XxTj (Luke 16 : 21).

3 Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 191.

4 xaTa&lt;J&gt;6%a&gt;. Luke has four of these compounds which "were very much
used in medical language" (Hobart).

5 6Buvwn.ac. 6 Luke the Physician, p. 196.
7 Luke the Physician, p. 59. 8 Ibid., p. 225.

THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 99

When we come to details in Acts the story of the Gospel is
repeated. In Acts 1 : 3 Luke alone in the New Testament has
the word "proof" 1 which "was technically employed in medi
cal language." 2 In fact, Dioscorides uses the word in his
Proem to his work De Materia Medica. In familiar language
"proof" and "sign" 3 were synonymous (Wisd. 5:11), yet
Aristotle (Rhet. 1 : 2) makes the technical distinction which
"was strictly maintained by medical men, although Luke may
no doubt have met the word elsewhere." 4 One need not press
this point nor the use of "wait for" 5 in 1 : 4, used only by Luke
in the New Testament, and common in medical writings for
awaiting the result of medicine or other medical treatment. 6
In Acts 1 : 18 the word for "headlong" 7 is peculiar to Luke
and is common to medical writers in a technical sense. The
word occurs in classical writers.

In Acts 3 : 7 f., Luke has a remarkable description of the
sudden healing of the lame man. Note "ankle-bones" 8 which
is found here alone in the New Testament and is the technical
language of a medical man. 9 Besides, the word for "feet" 10 is
unusual in this sense outside of medical works. The word for
"received strength" 11 is common enough, but medical writers
use it. Luke s word for "immediately" 12 is frequent in both
Gospel and Acts, and in the great majority of instances he uses
it concerning cases of healing or of death as it appears in medi
cal writers. 13 Notice also Luke s interest in the proof of the
sudden cure (leaping, standing, beginning to walk).

In Acts 5 : 5 and 10 Luke says that both Ananias and Sap-
phira "gave up the ghost." 14 He uses it also of the death of
Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12 : 23). It occurs in Ezek. 21 : 7, but
" seems to be almost confined to the medical writers, and very
seldom used by them." 15 So in Acts 5 : 6 Luke has "wrapped
him round" 16 or "shrouded him." This verb occurs only once
in classical Greek in this sense of "shroud," but "in medical

2 Hobart, op. tit., p. 184. 8

4 Knowling, Acts, in loco. 6

6 Hobart, op. cit., p. 184. 7

8 a4&gt;piSp&.
9 Hobart, op. cit., pp. 34 f.; Knowling, Acts, in loco.

10 frfcastq.

12 xapaxpTJ{xa. Mark uses e56u&lt;;.

13 Hobart, op. tit., pp. 97 f.
15 Hobart, op. tit., p. 37.

100 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

language the word is very frequent and its sense varied," l for
bandaging, binding, etc.

In the account of SauPs conversion Luke says (Acts 9 : 18)
that " scales 2 " fell " 3 from his eyes. Both words are peculiar
to Luke in the New Testament, but are common in medical
writers and in conjunction for the falling off of scales from the
cuticle or any diseased part of the body. 4

In the case of /Eneas (Acts 9 : 33) Luke employs the same
technical word for "sick of the palsy" that he has in the Gospel
(5 : 18), but he also gives "a medical note of the length of time
the disease had lasted" 6 (eight years), as he does in other cases:
"The woman with a spirit of infirmity was eighteen years ill;
the woman with an issue of blood twelve years; the lame man
at the gate of the temple was forty years old, and his disease
congenital." 6 Luke has four words 7 for "sick-bed," and this
fact itself is remarkable. One for couch or bed, and two
diminutives (peculiar to Luke in N. T.) from that and one for
the pallet of the poorer classes. ^Eneas was lying on the pal
let. In Acts 5: 15 Luke notes that the sick were laid "on
beds and pallets." 8 In Acts 10 : 10; 11 : 5; 22 : 17 Luke em
ploys a word for "trance" (our "ecstasy"), common enough
for "wonder," but Luke alone in the New Testament has it
for vision or trance. It is frequent in medical works in this
sense.

Hobart 9 notes that the "mist" 10 and darkness that fell on
Elymas (Acts 13 : 11) was a distinct eye-disease. Galen uses
the word for one of the diseases of the eye, and Dioscorides
applies it to the cataract. It is not in the Septuagint, and
Luke alone has it in the New Testament.

In the case of the lame man at Lystra (Acts 14 : 8) who was
"impotent in his feet," ll Luke employs a word common enough
in the sense of "impossible," but only here in the New Testa-

1 Hobart, op. ait., p. 38.

3 dirf-jcemzv. In P. Par., 47, 27 (B. C. 153) we have dxox(xro) in the sense
of "collapse."

4 Hobart, op. cU., p. 39. B Hobart, op. ctt,, p. 40.

7 xXfvT), xXtvdptov, xXtvfSiov, xp4$@&lt;rro&lt;; (pallet).

8 lict xXtvaptav xal xpa^diTtov.

9 Op. cti. 10

M &lt;iB6vaTo? rots icoaCv. In P. Lond., 971, 4 (iii-iv A. D.) we have ,dc36vaTO&lt;;
used of a woman who was not strong, Sid dcoO^vstav rij&lt;; &lt;J&gt;6asto&lt;;.

THE USE OF MEDICAL TERMS BY LUKE 101

ment in the sense of "impotent." Medical writers use it
freely as Luke has it here. 1 One thinks of "foot-drop," "fall
ing arch" and many other weaknesses of the foot.

In Acts 20 : 9-12 Luke twice observes that the lad was borne
down by sleep, once by "deep sleep," like Galen and Hippoc
rates and other medical writers. Luke mentions also that
there were "many lights" in the room. Hobart 2 thinks that
the heat and oily smells helped to make the lad sleepy and not
alone Paul s long sermon. He notes also that he fell from the
third story and naturally was taken up dead. "They brought
the lad alive." Luke was in the company and doubtless was
one of the first to pick up the boy. He saw Paul heal the lad
and was deeply impressed by the incident.

In Acts 21 : 1-10 several interesting items call for notice.
Luke, like the barbarians, was interested in the fact that Paul
did not fall down dead suddenly when bitten by the "viper"
or "constrictor," which Ramsay 3 urges as the translation.
Constrictors have no poison-fangs and do not technically bite,
but they cling or "fasten on" 4 as this snake did to Paul s hand.
The word ("fastened on") is peculiar to Luke in the New Tes
tament, and is common in medical writers. "Dioscorides
uses it of poisonous matter introduced into the body." 6 Ram
say insists that the constrictor, not the viper in the technical
sense, alone occurs in Malta, and Luke uses a general term 6
once, and the word for viper 7 is not always strictly used. In
any case Luke is in no trouble. The word for swelling 8 is also
a medical term : 9 it is the usual word for inflammation. Besides,
Luke s word for "expected" 10 is used eleven times by Luke and
only five in all the rest of the New Testament. It is common
in medical writers. And then Luke notes that the father of
Publius had "fevers" u as well as dysentery. The word in the
plural for one person is peculiar to Luke in the New Testa
ment, but it is strictly medical, as in Hippocrates, who uses it
in connection with dysentery, as Luke does here. 12 Luke alone
uses this medical word also in the New Testament. It has

1 Hobart, op. tit., p. 46. 2 Ibid., p. 48.

8 Luke the Physician, p. 63. 4 xa6?)4&gt;ev.

6 Hobart, op. tit., p. 288. 6 6rjp(ov.

9 Hobart, op. tit., p. 50. 10

11 TcupsToi?. Hobart, op. tit., p. 52.

102 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

been already observed that Luke employs one verb 1 for the
miraculous cure of Publius by Paul and another 2 for the gen
eral practice of medicine in which he engaged. The rest came
and received medical treatment at Luke s hands.

It is impossible in the light of the foregoing facts not to agree
with Harnack 3 that the evidence is of "overwhelming force."
The author of both the Gospel and the Acts was a physician.
Even if Paul had not told us that Luke was a physician, we
could now see it to be true. It is good to be able to see the
facts. It is not claimed that Luke knew modern scientific
theories, but that he had the spirit and method of the man of
science of his day.

2 48epaice6ovro.
Luke the Physician, p. 198.

CHAPTER VIII

A PHYSICIAN S ACCOUNT OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS 1

"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Most High shall overshadow thee" (Luke 1 : 35).

It is hard to overestimate the world s debt to Luke. But
for Luke we should not have the Christmas story. How poor
we should be without it.

1. A Vital Element in Luke s History. It is manifest that
the more we have stressed the general culture of Luke, his
scientific training as a physician and his painstaking research
as a historian, the more difficult it is to say that Luke just
dumped in the story of Christ s birth because he picked it up
and because he wished to have a fuller report than Mark had
given. If "Luke is a historian of the first rank," 2 he must be
credited with a serious purpose in giving the account of the
Virgin Birth of Jesus. "We can argue, then, with perfect
confidence that Luke did not take the narrative of the birth
and childhood of Christ from mere current talk and general
belief ." 3 To say that he was credulous and told legends about
Zacharias and Elizabeth, Joseph and Mary, John and Jesus, is
to fly in the face of Luke 1 : 1-4 and to brand Luke either as
a hypocrite or an incompetent. Every man is a child of his
time save Jesus, who is that and also the child of all time.
In this discussion no claim is made that Luke is infallible or
even inspired. It is only asked that all the facts involved be
honestly faced,

One may pass by occasional bias, personal prejudice, or a
slip now and then in a historian without throwing him to the
discard, if one sees proof of these things. An occasional fly
in the ointment can be discounted. But in a crucial matter
like the birth of Jesus in Luke 1 and 2 one cannot overlook
carelessness or credulity. "If a historian is convicted in a
vital error on such a vital point, he ceases to be trustworthy

1 See Sunday School Times, May 29, 1920.

2 Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 222.

3 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 80.

103

104 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

on his own account." 1 We cannot deny the fact that Luke,
great historian and great physician as he was, soberly recorded
the superhuman birth of Jesus. 2 Luke reports that Jesus had
a human mother, but not a human father. This is the core of
the problem but not all of it. Luke likewise narrates the visits
or visions of the angel Gabriel to Zacharias and to Mary. He
also tells the message of the angel of the Lord to the shepherds
near Bethlehem and the song of the heavenly host and the
visit of the shepherds to Mary and the child. And then he
records the prophetic insight of Simeon and Anna, besides the
noble hymns of Elizabeth, Mary and Zacharias. He has
written these narratives with consummate care and skill. One
has only to turn to the silly legends about the birth of Jesus in
the Nativity of Mary, the Pseudo-Matthew, the Arabic Gos
pel of the Infancy, the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of
Thomas, to see the restraint and simple dignity of Luke s
narrative. "The frigid miracle-mongering of the so-called
Gospels of the Infancy, when compared with the transparent
honesty and delicate reserve of our Evangelists, offers one of
the most instructive contrasts in all literature." 3

It is impossible to separate Luke the physician and Luke
the historian. It is the cultured Greek physician, the man of
science, who contributes the story of the miraculous birth of
Jesus. It is easy enough to some to dismiss the whole story as
due to heathen myth or Jewish legend, with the desire to satisfy
devout demands for the deification of Jesus. The Roman
emperors were worshipped. Why not attribute deity to Jesus ?
But heathenism had no influence on Christianity thus early,
and it was repellent to Judaism to worship Jesus. Harnack 4
holds that one "must cherish serious doubts as to whether the
idea of the Virgin Birth would have ever made its appearance

1 Ramsay, ibid., p. 6.

2 Some modern writers profess to see in Luke 1 : 31-33 natural paternity
and in 1 : 34-35 supernatural causality, claiming that the original docu
ment gave only the first, while Luke added the second. So Weiss in his
ed. of Meyer, p. 303. But that is purely hypothetical. See Bruce, Exposi
tor s Greek Testament, p. 465. There is no doubt at all as to the genuine
ness of Luke 1 : 34-35, since all the documents give it. Here we have the
view of Luke whatever was in the source (oral or written). He attributes
the origin of the birth of Jesus to the Holy Spirit, and calls the child the
Son of God.

3 J. Armitage Robinson, Some Thoughts on the Incarnation, p. 38.

4 Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 145.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 105

on Jewish soil if it had not been for Isaiah 7 : 14." He thinks 1
that orthodox Jews may have brooded over the idea that the
Mother of the Messiah was to be a virgin. At any rate Har-
nack is sure that Luke "could not have himself invented a fic
tion like this." 2 But "fiction" he takes it to be. Matthew
Arnold 3 bluntly asserts: "I do not believe in the Virgin Birth
of Christ because it involves a miracle, and miracles do not
happen." Thus science and history are turned against Luke s
narrative. But scientists to-day are not so dogmatic against
the possibility of miracle. The eminent scientist Professor
Sir George Stokes says in the Gifford Lectures for 1891, p. 23:
"If we think of the laws of Nature as self-existent and self-
caused, then we cannot admit any deviation from them. But
if we think of them as designed by a Supreme Will, then we
must allow the possibility of their being on some particular
occasion suspended." Miracle is difficult of definition. The
English word is from the Latin miraculum, meaning a wonder
ful thing. But in the New Testament the word for wonder
(teras) never occurs alone, but in connection with the words for
mighty works (dunameis) and for signs (semeid). The New
Testament conception of miracle is thus that it is something
out of the ordinary, wrought by the special interposition of the
Divine Will, for a high moral purpose. Sir Oliver Lodge (Life
and Matter, p. 198) holds that life transcends and yet also
combines and controls the physical forces of the world.

The point is not made here that one "must" believe in the
Virgin Birth of Jesus or be damned. It is doubtful if the
Twelve Apostles knew the facts about Christ s birth at first.
Indeed, it cannot be positively proven that any of them ever
became familiar with the facts about the Virgin Birth, unless
the Apostle Matthew is the author of our Greek Gospel bearing
his name and the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel. Cer
tainly they would not preach them during the lifetime of Mary
out of regard for her. In the nature of the. case the subject

1 Ibid., p. 148.

z lbid., p. 155. Carpenter (Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 156)
observes that "the Jews had no particular reverence for virginity. . . .
Isaiah s words were never regarded by the Jews as a prediction of Mes
siah s birth of a virgin." See also Box, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, p. 220.
Philo s teaching is too vague and at most implies divine generation for the
Messiah, not Virgin Birth.

3 Preface to Literature and Dogma.

106 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

was not, and is not, one for public discourse. Jesus made no
reference to the matter so far as we know. Soltau 1 is rather
fierce in his protest : " Whoever makes the further demand that
an evangelical Christian shall believe in the words conceived by
the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary/ wittingly constitutes
himself a sharer in a sin against the Holy Spirit of the true
Gospel as transmitted to us by the apostles and their school."
But surely Soltau is a bit excited in these words. The simple
truth is that the only record in the Gospels gives the Virgin
Birth. Mark begins with the public ministry and, of course,
has nothing at all on the subject. John writes after Matthew
and Luke and seems to refer to the Virgin Birth in John 1 : 14.
The reference is certainly to the Incarnation and it is not in
consistent with the Virgin Birth. If it be asked why John
makes no explicit mention of the Virgin Birth, it may be
replied that he was content with what Matthew and Luke tell
and saw no occasion to add to what they narrate. There are
those who interpret John 1 : 14 as a denial of the Virgin Birth,
but that surely is a misinterpretation of John s language. Both
Matthew and Luke narrate the birth of Jesus as superhuman
without a human father. They give independent narratives,
but they agree on this crucial point.

We are concerned with Luke the physician. "Some day
we may know how a Greek physician came to write the story
of Bethlehem." 2 Luke as a physician had written his birth
reports (and death reports), but never one like this. He knew
the silly legends about the Caesars and the Greek gods and god
desses. He has reverence for childhood and for motherhood.
He has the soul of the saint and the insight of the scientist.
He is perfectly conscious of the importance of this part of his
story, but he is not posing. There are no stage theatricals as
at the birth of Louis XIV at St. Germain. With matchless
art he pictures the Babe in the manger at Bethlehem. We
may be sure that this story came out of the Christian circle,
out of the inner circle.

2. Did Luke Believe His Narrative ? The question is quite
pertinent. We are bound to say that he did. Harnack 3 has
no doubt of Luke s sincerity. He clearly thinks that he is
narrating facts, not pious legends. Harnack suggests that

1 The Virgin Birth, p. 65. 2 Naylor, The Expositor, 1909.

3 Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 154 f .

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 107

Luke may have been an adherent of John the Baptist before he
became a Christian, because of his knowledge of the birth of
the Baptist. That is quite unlikely, and Luke s two years in
Palestine, with headquarters at Csesarea, offer abundant oppor
tunity for obtaining such information. Luke tells the Christ
mas story with utter sincerity, sheer simplicity and transcen
dent beauty. Christianity thus owes Luke a tremendous
debt. The influence of the first two chapters of Luke s Gospel
on the race has been incalculable. So far from being a mere
teller of old wives fables in chapters 1 and 2, Ramsay 1 holds
that "Luke attached the highest importance to this part of
his narrative." "The elaboration and detail of the first two
chapters of the Gospel form a sufficient proof that Luke recog
nized the importance of the central incident in them." We
may argue, therefore, that as a historian of the first rank Luke
took particular pains with the birth of Jesus. His reputation
as a man of science was involved, as was his character as an
honest historian. Whether he translated Aramaic documents
or oral traditions or rewrote the whole in his own language,
Luke makes himself responsible for the narrative.

It is inconceivable that he put in these stories without due
reflection. He saw what was at stake and wrote them out
deliberately. He would not have done so if he had considered
them merely idle tales. He believed in the supernatural birth
of Jesus. Was he incompetent ? Was he superstitious ? Was
he credulous? Was he gullible ? We may ask these questions
if we will. But we are not at liberty to question Luke s intel
lectual honesty. He may have been mistaken. That is a
matter of opinion. But, at least, he is entitled to be heard
concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus on the assumption of his
own belief in that event with whatever weight his proved worth
as an accurate historian and his opinion as a medical expert of
his time may carry. Luke himself says "that he had inves
tigated from their origin the facts which he is going to narrate." 2
"St. Luke has been proved to be a writer of great historical
accuracy, and we may be certain that he admitted nothing
within his record of which he had not thoroughly tested the
truth." 3 The presumption, then, is in favor of the truthful-

1 Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 73.

2 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 78.

3 Grierson, Hastings s One Vol. B. D.

108 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

ness of the Birth narrative so far as Luke s character as a
man and writer goes, unless, forsooth, the matter in question
is inherently impossible in itself. That condition we pass by
for the present, but it must be considered before we reach a
conclusion. For the moment Luke predisposes one to believe
his narrative.

3. Where Did Luke Get His Information ? In Chapter III,
The Sources of the Gospel, it was shown that Luke probably
obtained the facts about the birth of Jesus from Mary herself,
either directly or indirectly. It is quite possible that Mary
herself was still living in Palestine during the years 57 and 58,
when Luke was there. 1 If not, Luke could easily have talked
with some one who knew Mary s heart on this subject. Ram
say thinks that the directness of the whole story implies oral
origin rather than formal autobiography. " There is a womanly
spirit in the whole narrative, which seems inconsistent with
the transmission from man to man, and which, moreover, is
an indication of Luke s character: he had marked sympathy
with women." 2 It is impossible to think that Luke deliberately
attempted to create the false impression by literary skill that
Mary was the source of his knowledge. 3 There were only two
persons who knew the facts concerning the supernatural birth
of Jesus. These were Mary and Joseph.

At first Mary alone knew. But Joseph had to know if he
was to be the protector of his espoused wife. Matthew s report
is from the standpoint of Joseph, and it is plain that Joseph
was disposed to put Mary away privily instead of making her a
public example according to law and custom (Matt. 1:19).
It is not stated in Matthew whether Joseph simply became
suspicious or whether he disbelieved the story of Mary, though
it is implied that she did not tell for a while. Note " she was
found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 1:19). Cer
tainly Mary s predicament was awkward and embarrassing in
the extreme. The appearance of the angel of the Lord to
Joseph was necessary to clear her in Joseph s eyes (Matt.
1 : 20-25). Then Joseph was willing to bear the obloquy of
public reproach with Mary and to shield her as his wife. It
is plain from both Matthew and Luke that, outside of Mary s
confidence to Elizabeth, they kept their secret to themselves.

1 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 88. 2 Ibid.

8 Ibid., p. 78.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 109

It is undoubted that the neighbors in Nazareth regarded Jesus
as the son of Joseph and Mary. Talk would die down in the
course of time. Joseph planned to go back to Bethlehem on
his return from Egypt, possibly to avoid the gossip of Naz
areth. But because of the change in Herod s will he came
back to Nazareth, for Antipas was to be preferred to Arche-
laus (Matt. 11:22). Mary could carry her head erect, for
she knew the facts and kept them hid in her heart (Luke
2 : 19, 51). It was enough that Joseph understood and trusted
her. The effort of Herod to kill the Babe would close Mary s
mouth all the tighter. Fortunately Mary would not hear all
the talk which reappears even in the Talmud. Any claim on
her part that her son was to be the Messiah would have made
matters worse.

But was Mary to remain silent always? Did she not owe
it to herself and to Joseph and to Jesus to tell the facts before
she died? Both Mary and Joseph might die. Joseph appar
ently did die before the ministry of Jesus, but not before telling
his story to some one, or drafting it so that Matthew ultimately
got hold of it. Jesus was now dead. Elizabeth had long
since died. Mary alone was left. She had a sacred responsi
bility to clear her own honor. 1 Clearly, then, sooner or later,
Mary told some one, either her intimate friend Joanna, or
Luke, the sympathetic physician who would understand her
inmost heart. We can be grateful that she revealed the secrets
of her soul. "In these chapters, in short, we seem looking
through a glass into Mary s very heart. Her purity of soul,
her delicate reserve, her inspired exaltation, her patient com
mitting of herself into God s hands to vindicate her honor, her
deep, brooding, thoughtful spirit how truth-like and worthy
of the fact is the whole picture/ 2

It is not hard to imagine the intense interest with which
Luke first listened to this story from Mary or read her narra
tive of her unexampled experience. He satisfied himself of its
truthfulness by all the tests that were open to him. His Greek
science and Christian theology offered objections and raised
difficulties, we may be sure. After accepting Mary s report of
her experiences Luke was naturally anxious to do justice to
Mary and to Jesus. Doctor Len G. Broughton, of Knoxville,

1 Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, p. 86.

2 Ibid., p. 84.

110 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

himself long a physician of skill, remarked l to me that Luke
naturally gives Mary s version of the event because that is the
practice of the physician. He talks to the mother before he
makes his birth-report.

4. But Why Did Luke Tell It At All f Why not keep silent
on the subject as the Apostles did in their preaching and as
Mark did in his Gospel? It is customary to say that Luke
wished to write a complete life of Jesus and not a mere sketch
of his ministry and death, as Mark has done. It is more
complete but it is not a full life of Christ. Luke adds the
Birth narrative and gives only one glimpse of Jesus thereafter,
the visit to Jerusalem of the twelve-year-old boy, till his appear
ance by the Jordan. The crux of the matter is the supernat
ural birth of Jesus. He evidently felt that this must be told
whatever else was left out. And he naturally tells it first of
all.

It is usually said that the Logia of Jesus (Q) did not contain
an account of the birth of Jesus. This is probably true,
though it cannot be affirmed positively. Matthew and Luke
do, indeed, give different versions of the birth of Jesus, but it
does not follow that Luke was not acquainted with that of
Matthew. Q may very well have included matter that is
represented by either Matthew or Luke and not used by
both Gospels. Q was chiefly discourses. But both Matthew
and Luke, apart from Q, may have known the story from
Joseph s standpoint as Matthew tells it. It is wholly possible
that Luke knew the Gospel of Matthew. "It is now most
probable that Luke had heard the story which Matthew gives,
and it would have been easy to fit this into his own narrative
without disturbing either account. But they do not rest on
equal authority; and Luke would not mix the two." 2 If
Joseph s story was already known among the disciples and
written down in Q or in Matthew, all the more Luke would feel
called upon to give Mary s side of the story which had never
been written in a Gospel and which was not generally known
from the very nature of the case. He would do this with no
thought of reflection on or correction of the Joseph version.
Ramsay 3 thinks that he prefers Mary s version because he

1 At Northfield, August, 1919.

2 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 79.
9 Ibid.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 111

had it on the highest authority, from Mary herself. The con
fidence of Mary to Luke, if given personally, he took as a
sacred trust.

It is plain that Luke s purpose is different from that of
Matthew whether he had Matthew s story or not. Matthew
writes to convince the Jews that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
He gives the legal genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, his legal
father, though it is made plain that Joseph is not the actual
father of Jesus. Even the Sinaitic Syriac, which says in
Matt. 1 : 16 that Joseph begat Jesus, contradicts that state
ment in 1 : 18-20 by retaining the conception of Jesus by the
Holy Ghost and the refusal of Joseph to keep his troth with
Mary till reassured by the angel of the Lord. It is evident
that some scribe, probably Ebionite or Cerinthina Gnostic,
changed the text in 1 : 16 to get rid of the superhuman birth
and deity of Jesus, but failed to alter 1 : 18-20. The lineage
of Joseph, given by Matthew, was the only way for Jesus to
have a legal genealogy from the Jewish standpoint. But Luke
is not writing to convince Jews that Jesus is the Jewish Mes
siah. He is writing for the Gentile world, to prove to all men
everywhere that Jesus of Nazareth is the Saviour of the world.
All that Matthew has about the birth of Jesus may be true, but
it is beside the mark for Luke s purpose. Luke dedicates his
Gospel to Theophilus, but he has his eye on the Grseco-Roman
world. Hence he gives the actual genealogy of Jesus through
his mother Mary. He does not even combine her story with
that of Joseph, but gives hers alone. The two accounts sup
plement each other in a way not possible if both are romances.
"No two imaginary portraits ever agreed unless one copied
the other which is evidently not the case here." 1 Luke had
lived in Macedonia, where women had more freedom than in
most places at that time. Luke shows himself the friend of
women both in the Gospel and in the Acts. So Luke has
every reason for giving the story of the Nativity as he got it
from Mary. His narrative comes from a woman who is He
brew and who is saturated with Hebrew thought, spirit and
imagery. 2

It is sometimes objected that the Birth narratives in Luke
and Matthew are legendary because they do not appear in

1 Sweet, art. "Mary" in Int. St. Bible Encycl.

2 Ramsay, Luke the Physician, p. 13.

112 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Mark and John. The objection about Mark is quite beside the
point, since he begins with the Baptist s ministry. His work
is a torso. As to John, the case is different. John evidently
was familiar with the accounts of both Matthew and Luke.
"But John, in particular, assumes that his readers know the
facts recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, and his work is an
unintelligible phenomenon in literature unless this is recog
nized." 1 It is a gross misunderstanding of John 1 : 14, "the
Word became flesh," 2 to say that John here ignores or denies
the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Indeed, his language only becomes
intelligible when we see that he has that fact in mind. John
in his Prologue has given a philosophical statement of the
Incarnation of Christ under the term Logos. He has taken
the Memra of the Hebrew, the Logos of the Stoics and Philo,
the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, and has put
them together in one grand conception on a par with the Jew
ish idea of Messiah. 3 The Logos is personal and pre-existent
and divine (John 1 : 1) before his Incarnation (1 : 14). Thus
he becomes "God only begotten" (1 : 18) and is in the bosom
of the Father, the true Interpretation (Exegesis 4 ) of the Father,
the Son of God in the flesh. Jesus is the Son of God (1 : 34, 49).
Here John says nothing, it is true, about Mary, or Joseph, or
the angel Gabriel, or the Holy Ghost. He gives the picture of
the eternal Son of God becoming flesh, not entering into flesh
from the outside and not seeming to be flesh as the Docetics
taught, but actual union of God and man. Every word that
John employs is in perfect harmony w r ith the records in Mat
thew and Luke. Indeed, by implication John denies that
Jesus is the actual son of Joseph.

We do not know whether Paul was acquainted with the
birth narrative in Luke s Gospel. There is no reason for it

1 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 98.

2 6 X6YO? c&pJj lylvero.

3 If it be objected that John s failure to speak of the Holy Spirit shows
that he did not believe that the Incarnation was due to the Holy Spirit,
the answer is that by the same reasoning his failure to mention Mary here
might show disbelief in her as the Mother of Jesus, but for later mention
as his Mother. What can be truthfully said is that the historical details
of the birth of Jesus are not considered by John germane to his argument
covering the Incarnation Jof the Logos, a philosophical concept stated in
broad general terms.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 113

not to be so if the Gospel was written in Csesarea. He may or
may not have heard of the Virgin Birth of Jesus before that
time. In Gal. 4 : 4 Paul speaks of Christ as "born of woman,"
which, of course, is true of all men. But his language allows
the Virgin Birth. In Romans 1 : 3 f . Paul presents the human
nature of Christ, "who was born of the seed of David accord
ing to the flesh," and the divine nature also, "who was declared
to be the Son of God with power," language certainly in har
mony with the Virgin Birth. It cannot be complained that
Paul gives no details on this subject. Why should he do so?
The language of Paul is not decisive either way. It may well
be that he knew nothing at all about the Virgin Birth though
he says nothing that is inconsistent with it. If he was familiar
with the narratives in Matthew or Luke or with the fact itself,
there was no necessity for his use of the fact in connection with
the Resurrection or with the doctrine of the Atonement. The
real humanity and the real deity of Christ are the pertinent
facts for Paul s argument. He was not giving infancy narra
tives, as Matthew and Luke did.

5. Is the Virgin Birth Credible To-day f Can a modern man
accept the story of the birth of Jesus? Each age is sure of
itself and credulous of others. Our own is characterized by a
species of cocksureness in its own wisdom that has no founda
tion in matter of fact. This question of the Virgin Birth of
Jesus, attested by both Matthew and Luke in two independent
narratives, has been attacked from every standpoint.

On scientific grounds it is argued that it is impossible. At
least that argument was once made. Modern science is
familiar with parthenogenesis or "virgin birth" in the lower
forms of life. 1 Hence science cannot set aside the Virgin
Birth of Jesus. However, Luke does not present the birth of
Jesus as in accord with nature. He distinctly asserts that it
was due to the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Ghost,
like the Shekinah or Presence of God. It is miracle that we
have, not nature, but miracle cannot be ruled out unless it is
ruled out everywhere. To do that rules out God and leaves

*See interesting article on "Parthenogenesis" in the New International
Encyclopaedia, where a fairly full discussion of the subject appears. The
aphis (plant-louse), gall-gnats and other lower forms of animal life show
examples of parthenogenesis. Loeb has succeeded in developing sea-
urchins in unfertilized eggs by artificial stimulation.

114 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

us with materialism, the biggest miracle of all. Besides, men
of science to-day do believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, just as
Luke did before them. And he was also a man of science.

It is objected that Luke has simply followed blindly the
heathen myths which tell of gods becoming men. Some have
found analogues in Babylonian mythology, some in Greek
mythology, some in Jewish theology. But none of them gives
us a real Virgin Birth. They each contradict the other. No
real connection with Christianity is shown. "The Jewish
theories confute the Gentile; the Gentile the Jewish; the new
Babylonian theory destroys both and itself perishes with
them." l Harnack, 2 who counts the story as legend, yet knocks
the "myth" theories in the head: "Nothing that is mytho
logical in the sense of Greek or Oriental myth is to be found
in these accounts; all here is in the spirit of the Old Testament,
and most of it reads like a passage from the historical books of
that ancient volume."

It is objected that the very beauty and charm of Luke s
narrative proves that it is all a legend. "That, as an a priori
statement, I deny. S. Luke may be artistic, but so is God." 3
The point is that the persons and the poems in Luke 1 and 2
suit the actual events even better than they suit Luke s story.
The steps of God have a rhythm that puts to shame our noblest
measures. If God is at work in the birth of Jesus, everything
else is simple enough. The supreme art of Luke lies in telling
the story as it was. Ramsay* has biting sarcasm for critics
that cannot be satisfied: "Luke has already been proved in the
process of discovery to be correct in almost every detail of his
statement" (in Luke 2: 1-3). "The story is now established,
and the plea now is that Luke s story is a legend because it is
true to facts." We do not have to say that Luke had the
same concepts that Mary had at each point. " That there was
a more anthropomorphic picture of the messenger in Luke s
mind than there was in Mary s I feel no doubt. Yet I believe
that Luke was translating as exactly as he could into Greek
that which he had heard. He expresses and thinks as a Greek
that which was thought and expressed by a Hebrew." 5 I

1 Orr, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, p. 181.

2 Date of the Acts and Synoptic Gospels, p. 156.

3 Carpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 166.

4 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 226.

5 Ramsay, Luke the Physician, p. 13. Cf . p. 255.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 115

heartily agree with Carpenter 1 when he says of these events:
"I believe that they were beyond the power of either Luke or
Mary to invent, though their meaning was not beyond the
power of Mary to apprehend. That experience, described so
briefly, so simply, so plainly, yet without a single word that
could offend the most delicate purity, I take to be the Con
ception of the Holy Child."

It is even objected that the silence of Jesus concerning his
divine birth discredits the narrative in Matthew and Luke.
That is an utterly absurd demand. From the nature of the
case Jesus could not say anything on that subject. But when
only twelve years old he does reveal a consciousness that God
is his Father in a peculiar sense (Luke 2:49). He often in
sisted on this point (John 5:18; 8:19; 10:25) in a way to
enrage his enemies, who finally accused him of blasphemy for
this very thing (Matt. 26 : 63 f.).

It is not claimed that all the difficulty concerning the Virgin
Birth of Jesus has been removed. We live in a world that has
recovered the sense of wonder. The greatness of God over
shadows all. The discovery of radium has made men of
science humble. Astronomy has enlarged our ideas of God.
Einstein has modified Galileo and Newton. Scientists gaze
into the heavens with fresh awe. And even men to-day can
fly in the air. Loeb claims that by artificial stimulus he has
made fertile infertile eggs of some forms of sea-life (the sea-
urchin). If Loeb can do this, cannot God? "God laid his
hand on the deepest spring of man s being when His Son came
to us conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. " 2
All things considered, it seems to me that the Virgin Birth of
Jesus is overwhelmingly attested. We have seen the strength
of the witness of Luke and the independent testimony of
Matthew. John s Gospel really supports them. There is
nothing contrary to this view in the New Testament save the
erroneous reading of the Sinaitic Syriac for Matt. 1 : 16, which
is itself contradicted by its own text for Matt. 1 : 18-20.

But the question goes deeper than the witness of documents
or the interpretation of Luke. Carpenter 3 puts it fairly:
"Matters of this sort, involving belief or disbelief in the doc-

1 Op. dt., p. 168.

2 Father Paul Bull, God and Our Soldiers, p. 244.
8 Op. tit., p. 158.

116 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

trine of the Virgin Birth, are not determined, and cannot be
determined, by sheer literary and historical criticism."

We are confronted by the fact of Christ, the most tremen
dous fact in human history. All efforts to prove that Jesus
never lived, but is a myth, have failed signally. All efforts to
separate "Jesus" and "Christ" have likewise failed from the
days of Cerinthus with his "^Eon Christ" coming upon "Jesus"
at his baptism to the recent "Jesus or Christ" controversy. 1
The historic Jesus and the Christ of faith confront us in Mark
and in Q (the Logia of Jesus), our earliest known documents
concerning Jesus. Besides, Christianity is the vital force for
human uplift in the world. Christ to-day is the hope of the
race.

Thinking men have to account for the fact and the force of
Christ. We have the view of Luke. It does account for the
phenomenon of Jesus. If we reject it, we must have an alter
native view. There are those who think that the natural
birth of Jesus meets all the demands of a real Incarnation and
who are disposed to reject the reports in Matthew and Luke as
legends or myths. Every one must speak what he sees on
this subject. For myself, apart from setting aside these two
narratives and the consequent slur on Mary, who was not yet
married, the philosophical difficulty is measurably enhanced
by denial of the Virgin Birth. That view gives us the picture
of a God-possessed man, but not quite the essential union of
God and man. The Cerinthian Gnostic held that the divine
Christ came upon the man Jesus at his baptism and left him
on the Cross.

Carpenter 2 has no doubt that the "Incarnation principle is
more clearly exhibited in the doctrine of a Virgin Birth than
in any other." For myself I cannot conceive of a real Incar
nation of God in any other way. Some men think that they
can conceive of an Incarnation of God in Jesus even if Joseph
was his actual father. They are certainly honest in their view,
but it does not satisfy one. It greatly increases the difficulties
for me. Sir W. F. Barrett 3 quotes F. C. S. Schiller as saying:
"A mind unwilling to believe, or even undesirous to believe,
our weightiest evidence must ever fail to impress. It will
insist on taking the evidence in bits and rejecting item by item.

1 Cf . Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909. * Op. tit., p. 159.

8 Preface to On the Threshold of the Unseen.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 117

The man who announces his intention of waiting until a
single bit of absolutely conclusive evidence turns up, is really
a man not open to conviction, and if he be a logician, he knows
it."

The testimony of Luke concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus
is part of the larger problem of Jesus as the Son of God in
human flesh. That question raises the greatest of all issues,
the fact and the nature of God, of man, of sin, of redemption, 1
of law, of miracle, of life, of matter, of spirit. The angel
Gabriel said to Mary: "Wherefore also that which is to be
born shall be called holy" (Luke 1 : 35). Peter says that
"he did no sin" (I Peter 2:22). John asserts that "in him
was no sin" (I John 3:5). Paul declares that "he knew no
sin" (II Cor. 5 : 21). The author of Hebrews (4 : 15) says that
Jesus was "without sin." Jesus himself claimed sinlessness
(John 8:46). "This problem of an absolutely Holy One in
our sinful humanity: How did it come about? Can nature
explain it?" 2 Bruce 3 has the answer: "A sinless man is as
much a miracle in the moral world as a Virgin Birth is a mira
cle in the physical world." It remains true that the best
explanation of the whole truth about Jesus lies in the inter
pretation given by Luke in the opening chapters of his Gospel.

1 The sinlessness of Jesus is not without moral value if he is God as
well as man. He fought temptation, as we know, and kept himself free
from sin. He had a clean start, and because of his sinlessness did not
have to make atonement for sin of his own.

2 Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, p. 191.
8 Apologetics, p. 410.

CHAPTER IX

THE ROMANCE OF THE CENSUS IN LUKE S GOSPEL 1

"This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor
of Syria. And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his
own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city
of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called
Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to
enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great
with child" (Luke 2: 2-5).

Was Jbdfiy born in Bethlehem ? Did the Romans have a
periodical census? Was Quirinius twice governor of Syria?
Is Luke a credible historian ?

1. A Crucial Passage. Luke 2 : 1-7 has been furiously
assailed by the critics as a bundle of blunders, if not worse.
" Wilcken speaks of the passage Luke 2 : 1-3 as * the Lukan
legend (das Lukas-legende)." 2 The theological critics were
more severe than historians like Mommsen and Gardthausen.
It is only fair to say that we owe the clearing up of the com
plicated issues in this passage to Ramsay just as we can thank
Hawkins and Harnack for strengthening the case for Luke s
use of Mark and the Logia and Hobart for the light on the
medical language of Luke. Ramsay 3 tells how a German
critic sharply challenged his championship of Luke in St.
Paul the Traveller by asking this query: "If Luke is a great
historian, what would the author of this book make of Luke
2:1-3?" Ramsay adds that "nothing more was needed.
This brief question was sufficient. It was at that time ad
mitted on all hands that the statements in that passage are
entirely unhistorical. Not only did theological critics brush
them aside as incredible, every one that had any acquaintance
with Roman imperial history regarded them as false and due
either to blundering or to pure invention." 4 The issue was
put up squarely to Ramsay, who had ranked Luke as a his
torian of the first rank. "A number of the German critics,

1 The Biblical Review, October, 1920.

2 Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 225.

Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 223. * Ibid.

118

THE CENSUS IN LUKE S GOSPEL 119

followed by many outside of Germany, used until recently to
say without hesitation that Augustus never issued any decree
ordering a census, that there never was under the empire any
regular system of census, that where any casual census was
held the presence of the wife was not required but only of the
husband, and that his presence was never required at his origi
nal home." l Luke said all these things which the modern
critics flatly deny.

Who is right, Luke or the critics? The unfair attitude
toward Luke has been the assumption that he was bound to
be wrong because he stood unsupported by other ancient
authorities. It is not so much that they contradict Luke as
that they do not give the items that he records. / It is coolly
assumed that Luke is of no value as a historian wherrhe stands
alone. As a matter of fact, it is precisely when the historian
stands alone that his real worth as a writer is put to the test.
We see then whether he is a mere traditionalist or has made
original investigation for the facts. "Their hostility to Luke
arose out of their refusal to admit the superhuman element
in the government of the world." 2 This prejudice led Baur
and the Tubingen school to deny that Luke wrote the Gospel
and the Acts and to claim that the books were late party pam
phlets of the second century.

Even now the same distrust of Luke as a reliable writer sur
vives on the part of some who accept the Lukan authorship
and the early date of both Gospel and Acts. There is a dis
tinct "return to tradition" on both these points, a movement
led by Harnack and followed by men like Kirsopp Lake and
C. C. Torrey. "The real significance of the return to tradi
tion in literary criticism consists in the support that it affords
to those who have not decided to reject the supernaturalistic
view of Christian origins." 3 The great majority of radical
critics have refused to follow Harnack in his conclusions about
Luke s writings. Those who do follow him refuse to admit
the reality of the miraculous element. But it has become
difficult to discredit Luke on that ground if he wrote within
twenty years of the events.

1 Ibid., p. 225.

2 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 225.

3 Machen, "Recent Criticism of the Book of Acts" (Princeton Review,
October, 1919, p. 592).

120 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

But did Luke make a bad bungle of the facts in the Gospel
2 : 1-7 ? To the testimony let us turn.

2. The Two Bethlehems. It is actually charged that Luke
has confused the Bethlehem in Galilee (Zebulon) about seven
miles northeast of Nazareth with Bethlehem of Judea. Usener
makes this charge 1 and urges also that the author of the Fourth
Gospel (7 : 41 f.) was ignorant of the fact that Jesus was born
in Bethlehem of Judea. This is surely a curious argument
when the people in John 7 : 42 quote the passage in Micah 5 : 2
with the prophecy that the Messiah was to be born there.
There are two Bethlehems, 2 to be sure, but it does not follow
that Luke is wrong. He is supported by Matt. 2:6. The two
distinct traditions (from Joseph and from Mary) locate the
birth of Jesus at Bethlehem in Judea. It is true that Mark
is silent as he is about the fact of the birth itself. We have
seen that John 3 assumes a knowledge of Matthew and Luke.
But for Matthew and Luke one might suppose (cf. Luke 2 : 39)
that Jesus was born at Nazareth. But Luke is held to be dis
credited on this point because of his alleged blunders concern
ing the census and Quirinius, but without any real basis in
fact.

3. "The Whole World." Luke is charged with historical
looseness in saying that "all the world" 4 was to be enrolled.
He might at least be allowed the use of a harmless hyperbole
in the popular language of the time. Surely, no one would
accuse Luke of meaning that Augustus meant his decree to
apply to India and China or even to Parthia and western
Germany, where Rome did not rule. The civilized world at
that time was the Roman world, the Mediterranean world.
Luke reports the Jewish rabbis in Thessalonica as accusing
Paul and his company of having "turned the world upside
down" (Acts 17:63), meaning, of course, the Roman Empire.
Demetrius hi Ephesus called a meeting of the workmen and
roused them to fury by saying that Paul brought into disrepute
the worship of Diana, "whom all Asia and the world worship-
peth" (Acts 19:27). It is pettifogging criticism to pick at
Luke s language in the Gospel (2:1) on this point.

1 Encycl. Biblica.

2 Cf . Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, p. 25.

3 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 98.

4 Tcocoav -rijv oJ

THE CENSUS IN LUKE S GOSPEL 121

4. Herod s Kingdom. Ramsay 1 makes a sober argument to
prove from Strabo and Appian that the subject or vassal
kingdoms were as really under the Roman rule as the prov
inces (imperial and senatorial). It is perfectly plain that the
kingdom of Herod in Palestine was required to pay tribute to
Rome, but critics deny that the decree of Augustus applied
to Syria, and if it did, not to Palestine. Herod was in high
favor with Augustus, but he came near losing his crown and
his head when he sent Nicolaus of Damascus to Augustus, to
defend him against the charge of treason against Rome made
by Syllseus in the matter of the Arabian uprising. 2 Herod was,
after all, only a vassal king. Herod knew after that beyond
question that his was a dependent kingdom, as were all king
doms in the Roman Empire. But if the order of Augustus
for a general census came shortly after his estrangement,
Herod would naturally be a bit reluctant to respond readily.
It was a bitter pill, no doubt, for Herod and for the Jews to
swallow, for it was a public and general acknowledgment of
subjection to Rome.

5. The Census. In particular it has been objected that
Augustus never ordered a general census of the empire. Ram
say 3 is careful to note precisely what Luke does say. He does
not represent Augustus as ordering " that a single census should
be held of the whole Roman world," but "there went out a
decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be
enrolled." 4 Ramsay properly insists on the present tense of
"should be enrolled." Malalas 5 wrongly uses the aorist tense
in referring to what Luke says. "It is not stated or implied
by Luke that the system was actually put into force univer
sally. The principle of universal enrolments for the empire
was laid down by Augustus; but universal application of the
principle is not mentioned. That point was a matter of indif
ference to Luke." 6 But, while this is true, the natural infer
ence from Luke s words is that the principle was applied and
that there was a regular system of periodic censuses not only

1 Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, pp. 118-124.

2 Cf. Josephus, Ant. XV, x.

3 Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 123.

4 IJjtjXOsv B6f[jia xap&lt;i xafaapo? A&yo&JTau dcxoYP&lt;fc&lt;i&gt;sa0ai xacav T^V ofxou^vrjv.

5 Quoted by Ramsay, ibid., p. 124. dxoypa&lt;i&gt;ijvac.

6 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 125.

122 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

for Syria and Palestine, but for the whole of the empire. Be
sides, we now know, what Ramsay did not in 1898, that Augus
tus s bold governmental plan for a census was successful. We
have evidence for its operation in both West and East, though
most for the East. 1

But twenty years ago we had no knowledge of such a period
ical census system in the Roman Empire. "The idea that
such a system could have existed in the East, without leaving
any perceptible signs of its existence in recorded history, would
have been treated with ridicule, as the dream of a fanatical
devotee, who could believe anything and invent anything in
the support of the testimony of Luke." 2 But epigraphic and
archaeological research has proven this very thing, and Luke
stands vindicated before all the world against a generation of
infallible critics who applied the argument from silence against
him with deadly effect. Was there such a periodical enrol
ment in the Syrian province ? Was Christ born at Bethlehem
at the time of the first of the series ? Ramsay 3 frankly admits
that Luke s "credit as a historian is staked on this issue."
Luke not only speaks of "the first enrolment" 4 in Luke 2 : 2,
but in Acts 5 : 37 he speaks of "the days of the enrolment." 5
In Acts 5:37 Luke means by "the census" the great census,
"the epoch-making census taken about A. D. 7, when Judea
had just been incorporated in the Roman Empire as part of
the province of Syria." 6 Luke is clearly committed to the
idea of a distinction between the first census in Luke 2 : 2 and
the great census in Acts 5 : 37. Is he correct ?

The proof is at hand. Ramsay 7 shows that already Clement
of Alexandria "knew of some system of enrolment, either in
the empire as a whole, or at least in the province of Syria. His

1 Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 246.

2 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 126.

3 Ibid., p. 127.

4 dxoYpa^fj rcpt&TYj. A very large number of the papyri are census papers.
The oldest certainly dated is probably A. D. 34, but P. Oxy., II, 254
"probably belongs to A. D. 20" (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary,
p. 60). Grenfell and Hunt think that P. Oxy., II., 256 may even belong
to A. D. 6. A very early instance of the annual household enrolment,
XOCT otxfov dhcorpa(|&gt;Tj, is seen in P. Petr., Ill, 59 (d), of the Ptolemaic period.

8 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, p. 127.

7 Ibid., p. 128. Clement s words (Strom, I, 21, 147) mean this: foe TPWTO

THE CENSUS IN LUKE S GOSPEL 123

use of the plural and the word first force this inference upon
us." Clement of Alexandria lived, of course, in Egypt and
knew conditions there. Did he have any other information
than that which Luke gives us ? He makes the definite state
ment that the system of enrolments in Syria began with the
one at which the birth of Jesus took place. 1

It had been suggested that the "Indictional Periods" of
fifteen years, known in the fourth century (see Rainer Papyri),
began with the first census of Quirinius. 2 If so, the first cen
sus would come B. C. 3. But three scholars, 3 one after the
other, made the discovery that fourteen years was the cycle
for the enrolments in Egypt in the early Roman empire. The
same Greek word occurs in the papyri that Luke employs for
" enrolment." 4 The actual census papers have been found for
these enrolments in Egypt. "It is proved that enrolments
were made for the years ending in the summer of A. D. 90, 104,
118, 132 and so on till 230." 5 No papyrus as yet shows a
census for A. D. 76 under Vespasian, but it is obvious that one
was held.

"Actual census papers have been found of the periodic year
62 (and also 34) after Christ. Indirect references occur to the
census of A. D. 20 and 48. Grenfell and Hunt rightly argue
that Augustus must have originated this cycle. Beyond this
there is no certainty, and we must await the discovery of fresh
material." 6 The next census would be A. D. 6, the one that
Luke mentions in Acts 5 : 37. The first census (Luke 2 : 2)
would then come B. C. 8. An enrolment paper has been found
in Egypt with the same officials that belong to the sixth year
of Tiberius. "Hence the paper belongs to the census of
A. D. 20 and proves conclusively my theory as to the origin
of the Periodic Enrolments from Augustus." 7 Surely, after the
overwhelming evidence of the papyri on the periodical enrol
ments in Egypt, one hardly has the hardihood to accuse Luke
of error in mentioning the first two, for which as yet we have

1 Ramsay, Was Christ Barn at Bethlehem ?, p. 129.

2 Ibid., p. 130.

3 Kenyon, Classical Review, March, 1893, p. 110; Wilcken, Hermes,
1893, pp. 203 ff.; Viereck, Philologus, 1893, pp. 219 ff.
4 dc-rcoYpa^Tfj.
6 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 132.

6 Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 256.

7 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. x.

124 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

no papyri data. The inference is now wholly on Luke s side
and in his favor. The Augustan census system 1 has been
established by irrefragable evidence.

It is true that B. C. 8 comes too soon for the other evidence
for the birth of Jesus, which points to B. C. 6-5 as the probable
time. But it has to be remembered that in Egypt and Asia
Minor the year began, not January 1, as in Rome, "but on
some day in the late summer and autumn." 2 We have seen
that Herod sat uneasily on his throne in Judea. He had to
please both Augustus and the Jews. The Jews hated the
Roman yoke and Roman customs and held tenaciously to
their own traditions. The second census after the deposition
of Archelaus in A. D. 6 caused incipient insurrection against
Rome, as Josephus tells us (Ant. XVIII, 1:1). Hence it is
more than probable that the census was slow in moving off in
Palestine. Herod would postpone it as long as he could and
until brought to time by Augustus. The first census, besides,
would be harder to execute on time. Ramsay 3 tells us that
"the first enrolment in Syria was made in the year 8-7 B. C.,
but a consideration of the situation in Syria and Palestine
about that time will show that the enrolment in Herod s
Kingdom was probably delayed for some time later." Besides,
Herod was probably a year or more in putting it through after
it was started in Palestine. There is, therefore, no real difficulty
as to the date. The new discoveries concerning the cycle of
the Augustan census will allow a date around 6-5 B. C., and
that is in accord with what we know otherwise concerning the
date of Christ s birth. Turner in his article on "Chronology
of the New Testament" (Hastings s Dictionary of the Bible)
concludes by five converging lines of evidence that 7-6 B. C.
is the probable date of the birth of Jesus. Luke has met a
triumphant vindication in the fact of the census cycle under
Augustus and Christ s birth at the time of the first. But the
critics are not yet done with this famous passage in Luke 2 : 1-7.

6. The Enrolment by Households. Luke says (2:3): " And
all went to enroll themselves, every one to his own city." It is
charged that, even if there was a Roman census by Augustus,

1 Rainsay devotea Chap. XX to this subject (Bearing of Recent Dis
covery, pp. 255-274).

2 Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 255.

3 Was Christ Born at Bethlehem f, p. 174.

THE CENSUS IN LUKE S GOSPEL 125

the people would not have to go to their homes for the enrol
ment to be made. And even if Joseph went, he did not have
to take Mary, " to enrol himself with Mary who was betrothed
to him" (2:5). So the critics made merry with Luke s pious
fiction and legend to make it appear that Jesus was born at
Bethlehem in Judea instead of in Nazareth. 1 Plummer in his
great Commentary on Luke in 1896 stands by Luke s veracity,
though he is not able to show that it is true (p. 46): "How
Bethlehem came to be the Birthplace of Jesus Christ, although
Nazareth was the Home of His Parents. This explanation has
exposed Luke to an immense amount of criticism, which has
been expressed and sifted in a manner that has produced a
voluminous literature."

But once again Luke is vindicated in his view that it was
a household enrolment. The periodic enrolment shown in
Egypt 2 was by households. The Romans had the annual
enrolments for property valuations as we do, but every four
teen years the enrolment by households took place, like our
ten-year census, in which one "gave a complete enumeration
of all individuals who lived in the house, children, relatives,
etc. In one case twenty-seven persons are enumerated in one
paper by a householder." 3

But why did Joseph and Mary and all the rest go to their
homes ? We take our census in the homes as the Romans did.
Well, for one thing, it was done in Egypt. In Deissmann s
Light from the Ancient East (1910, tr., pp. 268 ff.) the proof is
found "that this was no mere figment of St. Luke or his author
ity, but that similar things took place in his age." Deissmann
adds: "Perhaps the most remarkable discovery of this kind
in the new texts is a parallel found some time ago to the state
ment in Luke 2 : 3, which has been so much questioned on the
strength of mere book learning." It is an edict of G. Vibius
Maximus, governor of Egypt, 104 A. D.: "The enrolment by
household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for
any cause are outside their homes to return to their domestic
hearths, that they may also accomplish the customary dispen
sation of enrolment and continue steadfastly in the husbandry

1 So Loisy, Les Evangiles synoptiqiies, I, p. 169, calls it "un anachronisme"
"pour faire naltre le Christ dans la patrie de David."

2 The title is always dtxoypa^ XOCT obdav.

8 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 146.

126 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

that belongeth to them." This is certainly a most amazing
vindication of the record in Luke. Deissmann (p. 269) com
ments on the "cultural parallelism between Egypt and the
birthplace of Christianity."

It is really not necessary to give further proof of Luke s
accuracy on this score. But Ramsay makes a sharp distinc
tion between the enrolment in Luke 2 : 1-7 and that in Acts
5 : 37. The latter was a census and a valuation of property
because Palestine was now hi A. D. 6 made a Roman province.
"But the census of Herod was tribal and Hebraic, not anti-
national. It was wholly and utterly unconnected with any
scheme of Roman taxation." l The "Roman census would be
made according to the existing political and social facts, and
would not require that persons be enrolled according to their
place of birth or origin." 2 We have only to think that Herod
agreed to the first census on condition that it be a tribal cen
sus of the various families, a thing that the Jews were used to
and would not resent so much. "And Joseph also went up
from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the
city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of
the house and family of David" (Luke 2:4). If that system
of household enrolment with the "return to their domestic
hearths" was allowed in Egypt, it would surely not be refused
in Palestine. The proof, once more, is complete. Luke has
not made up his facts to suit a theory. He has told the facts
as they occurred and has given the precise reason for the
journey of Joseph from Nazareth to Bethlehem, "because he
was of the house and family of David." The enrolment in
Palestine is both by household (the Roman method) and by
tribes (the Jewish).

But it is still objected that Mary need not have gone along
with Joseph. "It remains difficult to understand why Mary
should have accompanied Joseph, especially if it be a fact that
she was at that time only ( betrothed to him." 3 Luke does
not plainly say that Mary was enrolled with Joseph, though
that is the natural way to take his language "to enroll him
self with Mary." 4 The Sinaitic Syriac manuscript does say,

1 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 108. 2 Ibid., p. 106.

3 Carpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 153.

4 dxoYpdtJwccjOat cdv Mapufy.. Plummer (Comm., p. 52) says that civ Mapufy.
must be taken with dcv^rj, three lines away. But that is wholly unnatural.

THE CENSUS IN LUKE S GOSPEL 127

"because they were both of the house of David." That I
believe to be the fact. I think also that Luke gives the gene
alogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. At any
rate Mary "would be anxious at all risks not to be separated
from Joseph," and "after what is related in Matt. 1:19 he
would not leave her at this crisis." 1 It is pertinent also to
think that both Joseph and Mary would be anxious for the
child to be born in Bethlehem, since he was to be the Messiah
of promise. Before the birth of Queen Victoria her father
made it a point to get the mother back on English soil, so that
the possible heir to the British crown should be born in Britain.
Ramsay 2 thinks that "the wife, as well as the head of the
house, had to go to the proper city (or for some reason felt it
her duty to go), so that the household as a whole might be
numbered in the tribal and family centre." Certainly, these
are reasons enough to justify Mary in her course. But, alas,
Wilcken calls the narrative a legend, "because every detail
has been demonstrated to be historically correct. There is
no way of satisfying those people who have made up their
minds." 3

7. The Problem of Quirinius. This has been the hardest
tangle to unravel of all in the tissue of errors woven round
Luke 2 : 1-7. Luke seemed so obviously in error. "This was
the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria"
(Luke 2:2). He himself in Acts 5:37 refers to "the enrol
ment" when Judas of Galilee rose up and drew away some of
the people after him and perished. We know that Quirinius
was governor of Syria in A. D. 6, when that census was taken
which so angered the Jews (Josephus, Ant. XVIII, i, 1).
Hence it was argued that Luke simply blundered and dated
this census under Quirinius at the time of the birth of Christ,
instead of A. D. 6. Lake 4 actually argues that the birth of
Jesus occurred A. D. 6, but that view is wholly unlikely to
win favor. Plummer 5 says about Quirinius: "We must be
content to leave the difficulty unsolved," but he considers it
"monstrous" to throw away the whole narrative because of
this "mistake as to Cyrenius."

1 Plummer, Comm., p. 53.

2 Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, p. 101.

8 Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 273.

* The Expositor, Nov., 1912, pp. 462 f . 5 Comm., p. 50.

128 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

It is Ramsay again who has cleared the matter of confusion
by a series of inscriptions that bear on the career of Quirinius.
"The conclusion of Mommsen, of Borghesi, and of de Rossi,
that Quirinius governed Syria twice has been generally ac
cepted by modern scholars. " l The "Lapis Tiburtinus" is
accepted as referring to Quirinius, 2 and contains the words
"iterum Syriam," "a second time Syria." The Inscriptions of
^Emilius Secundus (Lapis Vendusf have "P. Sulpicio Quirinio
legatus Augusti Ccesaris" and "idem jussu Quirini censum"
It is not clear to which of the two times when Quirinius was
governor in Syria this inscription about the census refers.

But Ramsay 4 gives an inscription from Antioch in Pisidia,
examined by himself in 1912 and in 1913 and photographed
by Lady Ramsay, which speaks of Gaius Coristanius Pronto
as "prefect of P. Sulpicius Quirinius duumvir."* This inscrip
tion belongs to the date B. C. 10-7. In the village of Hissar-
ardi, close to Antioch, Ramsay found another inscription 6
where the same man is called "prefect of P. Sulpicius Quirinius
duumvir" and "chief of engineers, tribune of soldiers, prefect
of a Bosporan cohort," and also "prefect of M. Servilius."
This inscription shows "Quirinius as engaged in the war (the
Homonadensian War), and therefore as governor of Syria
before 6 B. C." "It is also a crowning step in the proof that
the story in Luke 2 : 1-3 is correct." The proof is complete
that Quirinius was twice "governor" in Syria, though not
necessarily in the same way each time. Luke does not say
that Quirinius was propraetor or procurator in the first census,
but only governor.

"Thus Quirinius and Servilius were governing the two ad
joining provinces, Syria-Cilicia and Galatia, around the year
8 B. C., when the First Census was made." 7 Surely, it is a
remarkable demonstration. "The exact year is a matter of
chronological interest; it was in the reign of King Herod.
Every circumstance narrated by Luke has been conclusively
shown to be natural and probable. The circumstances are
those which ordinarily accompanied a Roman census, and

1 Ramsay, Was Christ Barn at Bethlehem ?, p. 109.

/&#., p. 273. *Ibid., p. 274.

4 Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 285.

6 Prcefecto P. Sulpici Quirini duumviri. 6 Ibid., p. 291.

7 Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 300.

THE CENSUS IN LUKE S GOSPEL 129

Quirinius was in office about that time for several years." 1
For all these years the record in Luke 2 : 1-7 has stood all by
itself, the butt of ridicule by historians and theologians. Now
the rubbish-heaps of Egypt and the stones of Asia Minor cry
aloud in support of the narrative. The enemies of Luke are
put to rout.

But it may still be said that Tertullian (Adv. Marc., iv, 19)
states that Jesus was bora when Sentius Saterninus was gov
ernor of Syria (B. C. 9-6). But Ramsay has a ready solution
for this objection. He admits that Tertullian attempts to
correct Luke because "the first periodic enrolment of Syria
was made under Saterninus in B. C. 8-7. The enrolment of
Palestine was delayed by the census described until the late
summer or autumn of B. C. 6. At that time Varus was con
trolling the internal affairs of Syria, while Quirinius was con
trolling its armies and directing its foreign policy." Tertullian
"inferred too hastily" that the enrolment in Palestine was
made under Saterninus. "Luke, more accurately, says that
the enrolment of Palestine was made while Quirinius was act
ing as leader in Syria." Once it seemed a hopeless task to
clear up all the blunders charged against Luke in these verses.
But it has been done. If Ramsay had done nothing else for
New Testament scholarship, his name would deserve to be
cherished wherever Luke is known and loved. Luke is shown
to be the careful and accurate historian that he professed to
be. There is a veritable romance in the discovery of scraps
of papyri in Egypt that confirm Luke concerning the census
system of Augustus, which is ignored by all the ancient histo
rians except Luke, the greatest of them all.

CHAPTER X

A PHYSICIAN S REPORT OF THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 1

"And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he gave
him to his mother" (Luke 7 : 15).

There is no doubt that the miracles of Jesus greatly attracted
Luke. Was he credulous in his report of the wonders wrought
by Jesus ? They puzzle us and they probably puzzled him.
We do not have to think of miracle as a violation of the laws
of nature. God is the source of all power and of all the laws
of nature. They are all expressions of his will. If a personal
God controls the universe, there is no real objection to believ
ing that he can do what he wills to do at any time. The mod
ern theory of evolution is not less, but more, favorable to the
belief in miracle (Garvie, Hastings s One Vol. Diet, of the Bible}.
Sanday says: "I fully believe that there were miracles in the
age of the Gospels and Acts, in the sense of wonderful works
or mighty works/ But I do not think that they involve any
real breach of the order of nature" (Divine Overruling, p. 66).
He thinks that miracles can be explained as all in harmony
with laws of nature, that were once unknown, except those
that have been exaggerated in the telling. It is not necessary
for us to be able to explain the miracle in order for it to be
true. We must remember that God is greater than the laws
of nature and that our knowledge of nature and of God is still
very limited. It is doubtless true that some miracles then
would not be called miracles by us to-day. The heart of the
question is whether God ever interposes at all with his personal
will. I believe that he does and that is miracle.

1. Luke a Man of Science. This point has been made before,
but it is well to stress it again just here, for the fact has been
often overlooked. Luke s witness to the miracles of Jesus has
been brushed aside as the credulous ignorance of a non-scien
tific age. Each age plumes itself upon the scientific progress
over the rest. The word science is simply Latin for the Greek
gnosis, our knowledge. Progress in knowledge has not been

1 The Christian Worker s Magazine, June, 1920.
130

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 131

steady and uninterrupted and uniform. Reactions and lapses
come. The Renaissance followed the Dark Ages. The Dark
Ages belong to the Christian era and succeeded a period of
pagan enlightenment. We must not forget that Plato and
Aristotle lived long before Luke s day. In the spring and sum
mer semester of 1905 at the University of Oxford over a hun
dred courses of lectures on Aristotle were offered. Aristotle is
still king in the realm of pure intellect. The late Doctor W. H.
Whitsitt, for long Professor of Church History and then
President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, used
to talk to his classes of the time when "Plato was king in Zion"
and then of the time when "Aristotle was king in Zion."
Both Plato and Aristotle have left their mark on Christian
thought.

Not simply was Luke a man of general culture, a university
man familiar with current literature and literary methods,
but he was a man of technical training. Since Hobart s re
searches concerning the medical language of Luke, it is no
longer possible to treat Luke as a "quack," a charlatan, or an
ignorant practitioner; He was a trained physician like Galen
and Hippocrates, and is one of the best products of Greek cul
ture. So far as we know, he was the first man of science to
grapple with the facts and forces of faith and science. He was
superbly equipped for his task. He had a passion for the
truth, for the facts of nature and of grace. "No other man
of his time was so well fitted to judge r ; ghtly in questions in
volving both science and faith; and this ability sprang from
the nature of his vivid and varied Greek mentality." 1 So
then we approach Luke s report of the miracles of Jesus with
sincere interest. "His testimony to the miracles is, therefore,
the nearest thing possible to the evidence which has often been
desired in that of a man of science." 2

And yet Luke is discounted by some for the very reason
that he is a physician. So Harnack 3 instances the healing of
Malchus s ear as a case in point: "This is a flagrant instance of
the way in which a story of a miracle has arisen, and of what
we expect from Luke. He certainly is not following a separate
source here; but because he thinks it ought to have been so,

1 Homan, Luke the Greek Physician, p. 12.

2 Wace, Intr. St. Bible Encycl (art. "Miracles").

3 Luke the Physician, p. 187, note 4.

132 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

he makes it happen so." That is simply intolerable in Har-
nack. Luke is here ranked no higher than a peddler of tales
or a writer of mediaeval miracle-plays, or a dispenser of marvel
lous cures by a group of "Christian Science" dupes. When
Luke has been vindicated by modern research against the
whole array of historians and critics who attacked Luke 2 : 1-7,
he is entitled to be heard on his own account before it is assumed
that he is incompetent and insincere and even hypocritical.
Percy Gardner 1 follows the cue of Harnack and says: "But
when we speak of him as a physician, the modern mind is apt
to be misled, and to attribute to him a scientific education,
and methods of investigation such as are commonly used in
the great schools of medicine. From this point of view our
author is very far removed." Luke, to be sure, did not know
the evolutionary hypothesis or the germ theory of disease, but
he did have the Greek physician s love of the study of actual
cases and of drawing his theories from the facts. This is the
heart of scientific progress and Luke is in the line of succession.
Gardner 2 even says, "He loves a good miracle," as if to dis
credit Luke s testimony on the subject. Carpenter 3 accepts
this view of Luke: "Physician though he was, he was uncritical
about miracles." Again: 4 "He was undoubtedly what we
should call a truthful person, but it cannot be pretended that
he had the scientific zeal of the best modern historians. He
took pains to ascertain facts, but he was not alive to some
of the perils that surround historical inquiry." But I submit
that the new discoveries justify precisely this claim concerning
Luke.

It is not "pretended" that he had modern views of science
and medicine, nor will a true scientist to-day pretend that
present-day theories are finalities. The twentieth century has
brought a more reverent temper on the part of scientists con
cerning both God and man. No one claims that he has dis
covered the ultimate facts concerning nature. The very
"atom," once thought to be absolute and indivisible, is now
divided into electrons. Modern chemists, like the alchemists
of Luke s day, claim to be able to transmute metals by the aid
of radium, and to make diamonds to order out of charcoal.
He is a bold man to-day who will dare to say what man can or

1 Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 386. * Ibid., p. 390,

* Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 83. *Ibid, p. 82.

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 133

cannot do. The Atlantic Ocean has been spanned by the
aeroplane in a single flight. One disease after another is con
quered by science. Shall we limit the power of God while we
enlarge the powers of man? It is easier to believe in mighty
works by God because man himself has achieved so much. If
there is a God at all, He is greater than any man or than all
men. He is greater than the universe about us. We see the
influence of spirit upon matter in our own bodies. It is easier
to understand how God who is Spirit rules over matter and
makes all things subject to His will. There has never been a
day when it was easier to believe in miracles than now and
harder to tell what is a miracle. We can well believe that
some of the miracles wrought by Jesus would not be called
miracles by all men to-day. The use of language varies with
the growth of ideas. The fundamental question is the fact
of Jesus (his birth, his work, his teaching, his character, his
resurrection from the dead, his power to-day over the lives of
men).

At bottom we face the same problem that Luke faced. In
reality we know not one whit more concerning the ultimate
reality than Luke did. The new knowledge of our day has
filled us with awe in the presence of God. It is no disgrace for
us to-day to bow before the fact of God in Christ as Luke did.
We must open our minds to learn all we can, but the pride of
intellectual arrogance must not blind us to the glory of God in
Christ. Luke saw God at work in Christ the Great Physician.
No physician to-day can tell precisely how medicine cures
disease or what part the mind plays in the cure, or how far the
will of God operates in the whole, both in the fight that nature
makes and in the special exercise of His will in the individual
case. The physician himself often rouses the will of the
patient to victory over disease. Can God not do the same ?

2. Luke as an Eye-Witness of Paul s Miracles. Carpenter 1
has a curious comment concerning Paul s view of miracles:
"It may readily be conceded that S. Paul s attitude toward
the miraculous is much truer than S. Luke s." That remark
can only mean that Paul is sceptical concerning the miraculous
or that Luke is credulous. But Paul claimed that he himself
wrought miracles, a thing that Luke never does. "Truly the
signs of the apostle were wrought among you with all patience,
1 Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 83.

134 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

by signs and wonders and mighty works" (II Cor. 12:12).
Paul here employs precisely the three words 1 that Luke reports
Peter as using in his address at the great Pentecost (Acts 2 : 22).
So in Romans 15 : 18 f. Paul speaks of what the Holy Spirit
wrought through him among the Gentiles "in the power of
signs and wonders." We have Paul s first-hand testimony
concerning his own miracles. Besides, Paul testifies to the
greatest of all miracles in his own experience, the vision of the
Risen Christ (I Cor. 9 : 1; 15 : 8; Gal. 1 : 16). Paul even claims
that some of his own converts wrought miracles (I Cor. 12 : 9 f .,
28-30; 14:22; Gal. 3:5). These instances all come from
Paul s universally acknowledged Epistles. It is hard to set
aside the witness of a man of Paul s intellectual acumen.
There were " Counterfeit Miracles " (Warfield) then as there are
now, but Paul s miracles do not come in that category.

We have other autoptic witnesses to the miracles. Mark s
Gospel reports Peter s description of the miracles of Jesus. If
John the Apostle is the author of the Fourth Gospel, we have
another eye-witness to the miracles of Jesus. See John 21 : 24.
In John s Gospel we have healings of the sick (4 : 16 ff.; 5:8;
6:2; 9 : 6 f .), raising the dead (11:44), the Resurrection of
Christ (20 and 21) and miracles over inanimate nature (2:9;
6 : 11 f., 19; 21: 6).

Percy Gardner 2 thinks that Luke " was attracted to the new
faith by its power over disease and evil spirits." Even so, we
have no right to say that Luke was "taken in" by Paul s "pre
tense" to work miracles. Luke not only had Paul s word
for working miracles, but in the "we" sections of Acts Luke
records miracles which he himself witnessed. "It should
always be borne in mind that they are recorded by a physician,
who was an eye-witness of them." 3 In these cases, therefore,
we have a sort of double proof, Paul s general claim that he
worked miracles and Luke s testimony to seeing him do them.
It is wholly gratuitous to say that Luke s judgment as a his
torian lapsed when miracles came before him. Let us examine
some of the cases in question and see if Luke s treatment of the
miracles wrought by Paul disqualifies him for discussing in a
credible manner the miracles of Jesus.

xctl t^paccv xal
2 Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 386.
8 Wace, Intr. St. Bible Encycl (art. "Miracles").

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 135

The cure of the ventriloquist girl (Acts 16 : 18) is in point.
The poor girl had a "python." 1 Plutarch says that a ventrilo
quist was called a python. The slave girl may have been
diseased in her mind and was the object of superstition and the
victim of a group of men who exploited her fortune-telling for
gain as men, alas, exploit girls for base gain. The poor girl
troubled Paul, Luke and the rest, "the same following after
Paul and us" (Acts 16:17). Luke reports Paul as charging
"the spirit in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.
And it came out that very hour." The whole subject of
demonology is a dark one, but modern scientists are no longer
so positive that evil spirits cannot dominate human beings.
Luke saw the cure of this girl, sudden and instantaneous.

Luke was a witness also of the earthquake and the release of
the prisoners, with the consequent conversion of the jailer
(Acts 16 : 26-34). He does not report the earthquake as a
miracle, but as a dispensation of providence for Paul and
Silas.

Luke saw Paul restore to life the lad who had fallen out of
the window at Troas during Paul s long sermon (Acts 20 : 9-12).
Luke is careful here in his language. He says the boy was
" taken up dead," but he implies that Paul brought him round
to life and not by medical means. Luke was evidently greatly
impressed.

We have already discussed Luke s description of Paul s
shaking off the viper unharmed (Acts 28 : 5), which Ramsay
considers a constrictor, a non-poisonous snake. But even so,
that explanation cannot apply to the cure of Publius by Paul s
prayer (Acts 28 : 8) and to Luke s further practice of medicine
in the island (28 : 9 f.). Luke does not create the impression
in these narratives that he is credulous and anxious to tell the
marvellous. His language is restrained and simple and quite
that of a scholar who weighs his words.

3. Luke s Report of Miracles in Q and Mark. In Luke
7 : 20-23 (= Matt. 11 : 4-6) Luke reports the record in Q (pos
sibly by Matthew the publican, himself an eye-witness of the
miracles of Jesus) of the words of Jesus concerning his miracles.
The two messengers from the Baptist in prison brought his
despairing question in his hour of gloom: "Art thou he that
cometh or look we for another?" (Luke 7:19). But Jesus

136 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

went on with his work, as if not heeding the inquiry. " In that
hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits;
and on many that were blind he bestowed sight" (Luke 7 : 21).
Then Jesus turned to the messengers and said : " Go your way,
and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; the blind
receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and
the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good tid
ings preached unto them." This was the cure for John s
doubt and despair.

We have seen that Q preserves the oldest tradition about
Christ that we have. It may even belong to the time when
Christ was alive on earth. There is no escape from the fact
that Jesus claimed to work miracles and that people believed
that he wrought them. Luke had seen Paul work miracles.
He would not be prejudiced against the testimony for the mira
cles of Jesus. But did he not sift the evidence for the miracles
of Jesus, as he claims to have done (Luke 1 : 1-4) about every
thing else? In Luke 7 : 1-10 (= Matt. 8 : 5-13) we certainly
have a quite independent record of the same event that Mat
thew narrates. Luke gives the two embassies from the cen
turion to Jesus, while Matthew fails to bring out these details.

Mark gives a detailed report of eighteen miracles of Jesus.
Of these Luke also reports thirteen. Luke modifies the lan
guage in certain instances, but he does not weaken the argu
ment for the real interposition of divine power by Christ.
Two of them are nature miracles (the stilling of the storm
and the feeding of the five thousand). The rest (counting the
drowning of the swine with the cure of the demoniac) are cases
of healing.

Few to-day will take the position of Hume that miracles
cannot be proven, or even that of Huxley that we can know
nothing about the matter at all. Fewer still assert that mira
cles cannot happen. Goethe said that a voice from heaven
would not convince him that water burned or that one rose
from the dead. But water can be made to burn by certain
chemicals. The more we know about nature and God the
more modest we become in our dogmatic statements about
God s limitations. Many are now willing to admit that Jesus
cured nervous troubles by psychic force, since we have learned
that the mind has a great influence on the body. Professor
Hyslop even suggests that hospitals be set apart for the curing

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 137

of certain forms of insanity by casting out demons. And then
many cases of insanity are now cured by pulling out diseased
teeth. So we learn slowly. But demoniacal possession is no
longer scouted by all scientists.

We must remember that nothing is miraculous to God or
Christ. With God and Christ nothing is miraculous because
all the forces of knowledge and of power are at their com
mand. If we had all knowledge and all power, nothing would
be miraculous to us. Christ was not limited to the powers
and laws known to us. If God made the universe, all the laws
of nature come from him. He still exercises sway over them.
Paul says that all things have been created through Christ
and unto Christ and all things hold together in Christ (Col.
1 : 16-17). It is a Christocentric universe. Christ is Lord of
all.

If modern science could learn all the secrets of nature, and
by the use of the laws of God do the things that Jesus did,
surely this would not disprove the cures wrought by Jesus or
his claim to divine energy in doing them. "My Father work-
eth even until now, and I work" (John 5: 17). With amaze
ment and with difficulty we unlock a few of the mysteries of
nature and pride ourselves on our own attainments. Jesus
played with the forces of nature as a master musician. The
more we learn of the marvels of nature, the more we marvel at
Jesus. There is only one explanation of his person and his
claim and his prowess. He was the Son of God.

4. Five Cases of Healing in Luke Alone. Of the thirty-five
miracles described in detail in the Gospels Luke gives twenty.
Of the twenty-six miracles of healing Luke gives sixteen and
five are peculiar to him. For discussion on these, see Chapter
VII, " The Medical Language of Luke." These five excited the
special interest of Luke. They were all chronic or incurable
cases like the old woman with curvature of the spine (Luke
13 : 10-17), the man with the dropsy (14 : 1-6), the ten lepers
(17:11-19), the case of surgery (22:51), and the restoration
to life of the son of the widow of Nain (7 : 11-17). They were
all cured instantaneously by Jesus and were genuine miracles.
Not one of these was a case of nervous disorder. These can
not be explained by any theory of modern psychology. Luke
was a psychologist, like all true physicians, but he has no hesi
tation in recording these cases that go beyond all human

138 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

power now as then. Luke alone reports the remarkable case
of the raising of the son of the widow of Nain. The funeral
procession was stopped and the boy given back to his mother.
It is one of the tenderest touches in the Gospels. It manifestly
touched the heart of Luke. "There is no need to prove that
the representation of our Lord given in the Third Gospel is
dominated by the conception of Him as the wondrous Healer
and Saviour of the sick, as, indeed, the Healer above all heal
ers." l But we are not at liberty to distort this fact into mean
ing that Luke attributed supernatural powers to Christ in
order to create that impression. We may, if we will, say that
Luke was incompetent to distinguish a miracle from an ordi
nary case of healing or was a poor judge of evidence, though
our opinion makes no change in the facts of the case. Gilbert 2
endeavors to explain away Luke s belief in the miraculous:
"We cannot doubt that Luke, who was little interested in the
miraculous element . . . was profoundly moved by what he
learned of the depth and the universality of the Master s sym
pathy." But how does Gilbert know that Luke took little
interest "in the miraculous element"? Percy Gardner says
that Luke loved a good miracle so much that he would lug it
in to brighten his narrative. It is hard to satisfy critics of
Luke. Luke gives no evidence of being an excitable physician
or a poor diagnostician. He writes calm and serious history
after prolonged and thorough research. We are bound to give
due weight to what he records as true, whether we accept it or
not. It is easier to ask questions than to answer them. Who
to-day can tell what is the origin of life, or the true nature of
life, or what death is and means?

5. Miracles of Christ Over Nature. Luke did not hesitate to
record evidences of the power of Christ over animate and
inanimate nature outside of man. It is here that some mod
ern scientists take a more positive stand against miracles.
Possible explanations have been offered for some of the mira
cles of healing, so that men of science are less sceptical about
the rest. But it must never be overlooked that the fact of
the miracles of Jesus by no means depends upon our being
able to offer intelligible theories about them. They may thus
be rendered easier for some men to believe, but the miracles
of Jesus are grounded on the central fact of God s mastery

1 Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 195. * Jesus, pp, 46 f.

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 139

over nature. Jesus presents God as personal, ana not as an
abstract philosophical conception or as misty pantheism. God
is like Jesus as Jesus is like God. Personal will rules the uni
verse, the Will of God expressed in his laws, but superior to
his laws, the Source of all Energy and Life. This is the view
of Jesus and he acts upon it. Luke accepts it and records
proofs of Christ s power and claims. It is not unscientific
that a real God should be at the heart of the universe. Mod
ern scientists hesitate to say that God cannot or does not
guide the universe by his Will. Wonderful powers have been
discovered in certain forms of matter, like radium. We must
either be materialists or spiritualists (in the proper use of this
word). Either matter is eternal and self-sufficient and the
source of life and energy, or God is eternal and before matter
and the creator of matter and the guide of the universe. No
one to-day conceives of a mechanical God who started the
universe and then took his hand off of the machine. God is
working to-day as much as ever. He works by his laws, by
the laws of his own nature, some of which we have discovered.
But he works on, whether we are ignorant or whether we know.
Nothing is miraculous to God. His Will is the supreme law
of the universe. It is thus an ordered world of law, but not a
merciless machine that, like a juggernaut, overrides all. Pre
sumption pays the price in such a universe. But we are not
hopeless and helpless before the perils of nature red in tooth
and claw. Law at bottom is love and God is love. God does
not act by whims and caprice, but he is our Father.

So Jesus lets the demons rush into the swine to save the man
(Luke 8 : 33 f.). "He gave them leave," Luke says, following
Mark s record (5: 13). Whatever our explanation of the rea
son that prompted Jesus, Luke puts down what Mark has.
The result proves that the people cared more for the hogs
than they did for the poor demoniac, for they begged Jesus
to leave their shores (Luke 8:37). It mattered little that
the man was now clothed and in his right mind (8 : 35). This
miracle is usually counted as one and the same with that of
the Gerasene Demoniac. Huxley had his fun with Gladstone
over "the Gadarene Pig Affair," but all the same hogs are sub
ject to mass attacks like sheep and like mobs of men. Hux
ley s point about Gerasa and Gadara vanishes, for we know
that the village of Khersa (Gerasa) by the lake is meant (not

140 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Gerasa thirty miles away), the village tributary to Gadara
some six miles distant.

Luke alone gives the draft of fishes (5:1-11). Some
critics find here another version of the draft of fishes in
John 21 : 1-14, but without adequate justification. Peter plays
a leading part both times, it is true, but that is not strange.
One of the strangest of all theories is that of Schmiedel, who
thinks that Luke is giving an allegory of Paul s conflict with
the Judaizers about the Gentiles. 1 No wonder Carpenter 2
calls this interpretation "an interesting example of the over-
subtlety with which S. Luke can be treated." And that is
termed scientific and historical exegesis! The allegorizing is
that of Schmiedel, not of Luke. Luke (8 : 22-25) reports the
stilling of the storm, following Mark s Gospel (4 : 35-41 =
Matt. 8 : 23-27). The mastery of Christ over wind and wave
is clearly shown to the marvel of the disciples, who gain a
fresh revelation of the person and power of Jesus.

The feeding of the five thousand is given in all the four
Gospels, the only one of the miracles wrought by Jesus that
is thus attested. Huxley does not ridicule this witness, which
is on a par with the Resurrection of Christ in its full testi
mony. And yet Luke records this amazing incident with
much detail (9 : 10-17). Mark s Gospel here preserves the
vivid details of Peter s description, the garden-beds and the
green grass (Mark 6 : 39 f.), but Luke follows Mark with the
orderly arrangement of the crowd and the manifest miracu
lous multiplication of the loaves and the fishes in the presence
of all the multitude. Jesus stood on the hillside and blessed
and broke the loaves as the disciples rapidly bore and dis
tributed the baskets. This miracle is a stumbling-block to all
who believe in an absentee God or in no God. But we see
here Jesus as Lord of nature and of man, with infinite pity
and boundless power. He hastened or skipped the usual
processes of nature. The miracle created a crisis in the min
istry of Jesus and led to his withdrawal from Galilee, because
of popular excitement and misunderstanding. It is hard to
think that the great crowds were fed by a trick and so pur
posely misled by Jesus. The picture of Jesus on the eastern
slope of the Sea of Galilee near Bethsaida Julias challenged

*Encyd. Bibl, pp. 4573-76 (art. "Simon Peter").
2 Op. cit., p. 84.

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 141

the interest of Luke as it compels men to-day to pause. The
crowd wanted to take him by force to Jerusalem and crown
him political king, as the panacea for earthly ills. If we crown
him king of our lives we shall find Jesus to be what Luke took
him to be, the Great Physician for soul and body, the Saviour
from sin and sickness, the Lord of all nature, the Giver of all
grace and good, the Lord of life and of death.

CHAPTER XI

A LITERARY MAN S RECORD OF THE PARABLES OF JESUS

"And his disciples asked him what this parable might be"
(Luke 8:9).

It is not straining after effect to call Luke a man of literary
tastes and habits. 1 There is a modern parallel to Luke in
Doctor W. T. Grenfell, the Oxford University man who has
given himself to work in Labrador as medical missionary,
and who writes of life in Labrador with exquisite charm
and grace. Luke knew the great literature of his time, one
can well believe, and he had, besides, the sure touch of genius
in the expression of his ideas. Sir W. Robertson Nicoll says
that Mark Rutherford always found the right word in the
right place. Luke was not a professional stylist. He did not
strive after artificial effects, but he had full knowledge and
fine discrimination.

1. The Beauty of Christ s Parables. They made a powerful
appeal to Luke. " It is one of the many signs of inferiority in
the apocryphal gospels that they contain no parables. While
they degrade miracles into mere arbitrary and unspiritual acts
of power, they omit all that teaches of the deep relations be
tween the seen and the unseen." 2 But, just as Luke was not
credulous in reporting miracles, so he had the insight to see
the worth of the parables of Jesus. The true biographer
reveals himself in the choice that he makes of the material in
his hands and in the skill with which he presents it to create
the picture.

There is a literary charm in Luke s report of Christ s para
bles that marks his Gospel apart from the others. But the
beauty of these parables is not due to the genius of Luke.
There is a beauty in the Bible facts as well as in the Bible
story. 3 Luke is faithful to Christ s words, and yet he gives a

1 McLachlan (St. Luke) has his first chapter on "Luke the Man of
Letters." "He is a man of literary attainment and scientific culture"
(p. 8).

2 Plummer, Hastings s D. B. ("Parable in the N. T.").

8 Cf . Stalker, The Beauty of the Bibk.

142

THE PARABLES OF JESUS 143

turn here and there in the setting of the story that one may
call literary finish if he will.

The literary perfection of the parables belongs to Jesus and
appears in the parables in all the Gospels. Sanday calls the
parables of Jesus the finest literary art of the world, combining
simplicity, profundity, elemental emotion and spiritual inten
sity. They were spoken chiefly in the Aramaic, and yet their
originality is attested in the Greek translation and even in the
English by their freshness, beauty and moral earnestness.
They possessed a matchless charm for the people who heard
them for the first time as they fell from the lips of the Master
Story-teller of the ages. For sheer witchery of words and
grip upon the mind and heart, the short stories of Jesus stand
alone. Edgar Allan Poe, Hawthorne, Bret Harte, O. Henry
and all the rest are on a lower plane.

And yet Jesus did not invent parables. They are common
in the Old Testament and in the Talmud. Some of the Jew
ish rabbis were very fond of using them. Parables are com
mon enough to-day. But Jesus is the master in the use of
them. He made the parable preach his gospel "a picture-
gospel" (Plummer). He knew "the book of nature and of
human nature" and threw a flash-light on both by means of
the parable. The people saw the sins and frailties of the
Pharisees in the parables of Jesus, and then their own photo
graphs stamped before their very eyes. The parables of Jesus
were so vivid that they were like moving pictures of the soul.
Augustine says that Christ s miracles are acted parables and
his parables are miracles of beauty and instruction. John
Foster says that the miracles of Jesus were like ringing the
great bell of the universe for the people to come and listen.
The parables caught their attention and drove the lesson
home. Christ drew his parables from the life of the people.
They are transcripts from the life of the time and so of all
time. Those in Luke are the most wonderful and beautiful
of all. If Luke loved a good miracle, he was equally fascinated
by the parables of Jesus.

2. Christ s Reasons for Using Parables. Scholars have
sought to find one reason that covers all the ground. This is
not possible, for Jesus himself gives two reasons for the use of
so many parables after the blasphemous accusation by the
Pharisees, when the atmosphere was electric with hostility.

144 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Jesus had frequently employed parabolic sayings and brief
isolated parables before this "Busy Day." But on this occa
sion "with many such parables spake he the word unto them,
as they were able to hear it: and without a parable spake he
not unto them: but privately to his disciples he expounded all
things" (Mark 4 : 33 f.). There are nine given by the Synop
tic Gospels and there were probably more. The very first
one, the parable of the sower, puzzled the disciples so that
they asked Jesus "what this parable might be" (Luke 8:9).
Then Jesus explained why he spoke on this occasion in parables.
It was a condemnation to the enemies of Christ " that 1 seeing
they may not see, and hearing they may not understand"
(Luke 8 : 10). And yet the same parable is meant to be a
revelation to the disciples: "Unto you it is given to know the
mysteries of the Kingdom of God" (Luke 8 : 10 = Mark 4:11
= Matt. 13: 11). One thinks of the "mystery-religions" and
their initiations and secrets, like modern Masons and other
secret orders. Mark reports Jesus as saying: "But unto them
that are without, all things are done in parables." The great
est secret order of the world is the Kingdom of God. Jesus
opens the mysteries of grace with no incantations and mock
ing mummeries, but with the illumination of the Holy Spirit
that floods the soul and the life with light. So the parables of
Jesus were a pillar of cloud and darkness to the Pharisees, but
of fire and light to the disciples when their eyes were opened
to see. They were a spiritual smoke-screen to shut off those
who were blaspheming Jesus. Thus Jesus keeps from casting
pearls before swine (Matt. 7 : 6) and is able to go on with his
teaching in an uncongenial atmosphere. Paul later noted
that the gospel message was a savor of life unto life or of death
unto death (II Cor. 2 : 17 if.)- It is literally true that preach
ing hardens the heart, the eye, the ear, the mind, or stirs one
to a richer life with God. Jesus himself was set for the falling
and the rising of many in Israel, as old Simeon saw (Luke 2 : 34).
But there are other reasons why Jesus used parables in his
teaching. They served to put truth in crisp form that was
easily remembered and that would be afterward understood.
The story would stick and would hold the lesson that it car
ried. The Apostles were not so well educated as the Pharisees.

1 Both Mark (4 : 12) and Luke here have Tva, which may express pur
pose or result (in the Koine"). Matthew (13 : 13) has 8-ci (because).

THE PARABLES OF JESUS 145

They had less intellectual training and dialectical acumen, but
they could catch the stories of Jesus, for they had less preju
dice and fewer predilections. They did see the point of the
parables after the private explanation by Jesus (Matt. 13 : 51).

And then there is power in a good story to win attention
and to hold it when interest begins to flag. Jesus had often
to say "Listen," as the minds of his hearers began to wander
or they were disconcerted. "If any man has ears to hear, let
him hear" (Mark 4 : 23). "Take heed therefore how ye hear"
(Luke 8 : 18), where Mark (4 : 24) has "what ye hear."

Once more the parables of Jesus stimulated inquiry on the
part of the disciples. On this very occasion the disciples
twice asked him to explain his parables, that of the sower
(Luke 8:9 = Mark 4 : 10 = Matt. 13 : 10) and that of the
tares (Matt. 13 : 36).

Jesus thus spoke in parables to the multitudes (Matt. 13 : 34)
what he could not so well have said to a popular assembly
already excited by the charges of the Pharisees. But the new
style of teaching became a marked characteristic of the min
istry of Jesus.

3. The Meaning of Parables. The etymology of the word is
simple enough. The Greek word 1 means to place beside for
purpose of comparison. The parable 2 is thus a sort of measur
ing-rod for spiritual and moral truth. Just as the yardstick
measures off a yard of silk, so the parable takes a concrete
example from life to illustrate the truth in mind. The word
illustration is a Latin word and means to throw light upon a
subject. This is the purpose, likewise, of parable. The little
girl was not far wrong when she said that a parable was an
earthly story with a heavenly meaning. The Hebrew word
for parable (mashal) was used for a discourse that implied
comparison. But the Hebrew term had a wide application.
It might be similitude, allegory, proverb, paradox, or even
riddle. So no one type covers all the uses of parable in the
New Testament.

The word is used in various ways in the Gospels. We have
a proverb called parable by Jesus in Luke 4 : 23 : " Physician,
heal thyself." There is analogy in such a proverb which the

fj from

2 John employs -jcapot^fa, a wayside saying, for shorter sayings of an
obscure nature (John 16 : 25, 29) and for longer narratives (John 10 : 6).

146 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

hearer must catch. So Luke terms Christ s proverb about
the blind leading the blind a parable (Luke 6:39). Hence
we can apply the word parable to the proverb of the reed
shaken with the wind (Luke 7 : 24) and the green tree and the
dry (23 : 31). See also the proverb of the whole and the sick
(Luke 5 : 31 f.) and of the bridegroom (5 : 34). Jesus did not
always call his parables by the word nor do the Gospels. See
Luke 16 : 13 about serving two masters. Sometimes the
similitude is drawn by the word "like" or "likened," as in the
brief parable of the leaven (Luke 13 : 20 f.). The parable of
the fig-tree (Luke 21 : 29-33) is also a good example of formal
comparison. See also the foolish rich man in Luke 12 : 16-21,
where Jesus draws the lesson clearly.

A parable may be a paradox. W. J. Moulton 1 notes three
kinds of paradox in Christ s parabolic teaching. One sort-
shocks the hearer by its violent contrast, as when Jesus said
that it is easier for a camel to -enter in through a needle s eye
than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God (Luke
18:25). Such a parable is meant to provoke reflection, as
when Jesus spoke of hating one s father and mother (Luke
14:26). The paradox may become clearer in time, as, for
instance, Christ s denunciation of the Pharisees as hypocrites
(Luke 6:42) with "beams" or long sticks of wood in their
eyes trying to get a little mote out of the other people s eyes.
But the third kind of parabolic paradox retains its inherent
difficulty with the lapse of time, as in conquering by the cross
and in saving one s life by losing it (Luke 9:23f.; 14:27).
So as to making friends by the mammon of unrighteousness
(16 : 9).

The longer parables have the narrative form, like the sower
(Luke 8:4-15), the prodigal son (15:11-32). In these the
formal comparison is not drawn, though it is plainly implied.
The great bulk of the longer parables are of this nature.

The parable need not be fact, but it must be truth. The
fable is a caricature of animal life, where the animals in a
grotesque way act contrary to nature. The parable is always
in harmony with nature, whether the lily of the field, the spar
row that falls, the lost sheep in the mountains, the lost coin,
or the lost boy. It is not possible to tell whether or when
Christ s parables are purely imaginative or have a basis of
1 Hastings s Diet, of Christ and the Gospels,

THE PARABLES OF JESUS 147

concrete fact in specific instances. The parable of the pounds
(Luke 19 : 11-27) seems to have as its background the deposi
tion of Archelaus in A. D. 6, when Jesus was a boy about
twelve years old. But most of Christ s parables are drawn
from nature or from human life about him. They are true to
form, and picture in lasting colors the life of men then and
now.

The allegory is a variety of parable, but scholars do not
agree in their use of the term allegory. Plummer 1 puts the
matter clearly: "In an allegory figure and fact, or, rather,
figure and interpretation, are not mixed, but are parallel, and
move simultaneously, as in the allegory of the True Vine or
of the Good Shepherd." And Plummer might have added
the allegory of the sower and of the prodigal son. The allegory
is a narrative parable that is self-explanatory. It means
speaking something else. 2 The point of the story is plain as
it proceeds for those who have eyes to see, though the disciples
did not understand the story of the sower till Jesus explained
it. Bunyan s Pilgrim s Progress is the great modern allegory.
Weinel 3 even says that Jesus never spoke in allegory and
Julicher 4 admits that the Gospels report him as doing so, but
misrepresent him in the matter. Jesus did not, it is true,
employ the allegorical method of interpretation in the whimsi
cal manner of Philo with his fantastic "spiritualizing" that
had such a disastrous influence on the Alexandrian theology
of Origen and Clement of Alexandria. All of the parables of
Jesus have a point and he uses the parable to point the moral
in his teaching. The allegory in the mouth of Jesus follows
the line of the parable in being true to nature. The deeper
spiritual truth that Jesus expounds lies on the surface for
those with spiritual insight. W. J. Moulton 5 regards the alle
gory with Christ as imperfectly developed, because he does
not explain all the details of the story. Compare the sower
(Luke 8 : 5-15) and the wicked husbandman (Luke 20 : 9-19).
But in all of Christ s parables he holds to the main point with
less concern for the setting and the details.

1 Hastings s Diet, of the Bible (art. "Parable in N. T.").

2 d),XT)Yop(a. The substantive does not occur in the N. T., but Paul
has the participle in Gal. 4 . 24.

3 Die Gleichnisse Jesu, p. 30. 4 Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, I, pp. 61 f.
6 Hastings s Diet, of Christ and the Gospels (art. "Parable").

148 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

4. The Interpretation of Parables. The wildest speculation
has appeared in the interpretation of the parables of Jesus.
We must be sure that we understand the language that Jesus
used, as, for instance, "that, when it shall fail, they may
receive you into the eternal tabernacles" (Luke 16:9). The
word "receive" simply means a welcome on the part of those
benefited by the use of one s money, not the purchase of sal
vation by means of one s money.

The context must be noted to see the precise light in which
the story appears. All three stories in Luke 15 are justifica
tions by Jesus of his association with publicans and sinners
against the sneer of the Pharisees and the scribes in verses
1 and 2. The lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son are pic
tures of the lost (publicans and sinners) whom Jesus came to
save. The elder brother is a picture of the carping Pharisee
who provoked the stories. Again in chapter 16 we have the
parables about the wise and the unwise use of money, and
Luke adds (16 : 14) that " the Pharisees, who were lovers of
money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him."

Each parable of Jesus teaches a great truth, and this is the
first thing to find and sometimes the only thing that we need
learn as to the teaching. Certainly in the case of the unjust
steward (Luke 16 : 1-13) this is true, and nothing can be made
of the fact of the steward s rascality. The same thing is true
of the discovery of the hid treasure and of the story of the
Lord s coming like a thief in the night.

And yet Jesus did sometimes make use of the minor details
as in some of those in the tares and practically all in the sower.
The early commentators went to such excesses that Chrysos-
tom (Horn, on Matt., 64 : 3) says that the details should be
ignored altogether in the interpretation of the parable.
Broadus (Comm. on Matt., Chap. XIII) thinks that we are safe
where we have the guidance of Christ, but that elsewhere
we should err on the side of restraint rather than license.
Trench 1 has good words in his third chapter. Augustine says
that the parable is not to be used as the basis for argument
unless one has a categorical teaching elsewhere. The three
loaves in Luke 11:5 have been made to teach the doctrine of
the Trinity, and the two shillings in the parable of the good
Samaritan (10 : 35) to mean baptism and the Lord s supper !
1 Notes on the Parables.

THE PARABLES OF JESUS 149

In particular, it should be said that one must be careful
about building schemes of theology in the interpretation of the
kingdom parables, especially as to the number seven in Matt.
13 or three in Luke 14 and in 15. Luke s kingdom parables
deal more with the individual experience rather than with the
gradual growth of the kingdom itself. There is an apocalyp
tic or eschatological element in some of the parables in Luke
as in Mark and Matthew, but the parable of the pounds
(Luke 19 : 11-27) was spoken expressly to discourage the wild
excitement of the multitude who " supposed that the kingdom
of God was immediately to appear" (19:11). And Luke s
report of the great eschatological discourse on the Mount of
Olives is quite brief (21 : 5-36). He uses the parable of the
fig-tree to warn the disciples about the coming culmination of
the kingdom (29-33). But, on the whole, the parables of
Jesus in Luke are a stern rebuke to the wild eschatologists who
fail to see the spiritual and ethical side of Christ s teaching.
The parables show the gradual expansion of the work of the
kingdom, and Luke has the pregnant saying of Christ to the
Pharisees that the kingdom of heaven is within 1 men, not an
external and political organization as the Pharisees expected
(17:20f.). "The truth about Jesus is too great to be seen
from any single standpoint. No single category is able to
contain him. The truth is more comprehensive than is sup
posed by either the Mystery school or the thoroughgoing
Eschatologists." 2 Jesus "transmuted eschatology" to serve
his purpose, but he was not a dupe of eschatological schemes
and programmes. Christ is glorified in the Transfiguration,
the Resurrection, the Ascension. Pentecost and the Destruc
tion of Jerusalem were forecasts of the end of the world and
the coming of Christ in person to judge the world.

5. Luke s Special Contribution to Our Knowledge of the Para
bles of Jesus. Scholars differ greatly in counting Christ s para
bles. Bruce 3 gives thirty-three and eight "parable-germs."
Koetsweld counts seventy-nine. I have listed some fifty of
them in Broadus s Harmony of the Gospels (pp. 270 f.). The
speech of Christ was full of metaphor and similitude like the
lilies of the field and the birds of the air. Of the thirty-five of
some length that are usually discussed in the books on the

1 4vT6&lt;;. 2 Carpenter, Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 153.

3 The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, pp. xi f .

150 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

parables of Jesus, Luke has twenty-three and eighteen occur
in his Gospel alone. Three are also in Matthew and Mark
(the sower, the mustard-seed, the wicked husbandman) and
two are in Matthew (the leaven, the lost sheep).

The eighteen that occur in Luke alone are beautiful and
give a distinct grace and glory to his Gospel. They are the
two debtors (Luke 7 : 40-43), the good Samaritan (10 : 30-37),
the friend at midnight (11 : 5-8), the rich fool (12 : 16-21), the
waiting servants (12 : 35-48), the barren fig-tree (13 : 6-9), the
chief seats at feasts (14:7-11), the great supper (14: 15-24),
the rash builder (14 : 28-30), the rash king (14 : 31-33), the
lost coin (15:8-10), the lost son (15: 11-32), the unrighteous
steward (16 : 1-12), the rich man and Lazarus (16 : 19-31), the
unprofitable servants (17:7-10), the unrighteous judge
(18 : 1-8), the Pharisee and the publican (18 : 9-14), the pounds
(19: 11-27). We could ill afford to give up these wonderful
parables.

Luke, like Matthew (13, 21, 24 and 25), is fond of bunching
the parables, as in 5:36-39; 13:18-21; 14:28-32; chapters
15, 16, 18. It looks as if Jesus at times piled parable upon
parable in his teaching, to drive the point home, as in Luke 15
(three) and in Matt. 21 and 22 (three). Sometimes there
are pairs of parables in Luke, as in Matthew. Plummer 1 notes
how the effect of Christ s parables is intensified by contrasts,
as in the heartless clergy and the charitable Samaritan (Luke
10 : 30), the rich man and Lazarus (16 : 19), the Pharisee and
the publican (18 : 9).

There is a trace of Luke s own style in some of the parables
which he may have translated from the Aramaic into the
Greek, 2 but in the main we may feel sure that Luke has pre
served the story with the flavor that Jesus gave it. Stanton 3
thinks that the good Samaritan, in particular, has Lukan
characteristics.

As a rule parables are drawn from a different realm to illus
trate one s point. But Luke gives some that come from the
same sphere by way of example, as the good Samaritan, the
foolish rich man, the rich man and Lazarus, the Pharisee and
the publican, the friend at midnight, the unjust judge. These

1 Hastings s B. D.

2 Carpenter, op. cit., p. 195.

3 Gospels as Historical Documents, II, p. 300.

THE PARABLES OF JESUS 151

are parables of the personal touch. The parallel consists in
the application of the story to the life of the hearer. Luke is
fond of the personal touch in Christ s stories. "The Lukan
parables are not formal expositions of the nature of the king
dom, they are appeals ad hominem. And they are drawn, for
the most part, not from the processes of nature, but from the
facts of human life and character." l

Glover 2 thinks that Jesus was fond of telling parables of his
home life in Nazareth. He watched his own home life. "It
was Mary, we may believe, who put the leaven in the three
measures of meal . . . and Jesus sat by and watched it. In
after years the sight came back to Him. He remembered the
big basin, the heaving, panting mass in it, the bubbles strug
gling out, swelling and breaking, and the level rising and fall
ing. It came to Him as a picture of the Kingdom of Heaven
at work in the individual man and in the community." 3

It matters little how we classify the parables of Jesus. That
is all subjective and more or less artificial. We shall get bet
ter results by studying the parables as they come in their own
context than by tearing them out by the roots and making
them live in our theological pots and pans. They are alive
and will bleed if mistreated. They throb with life as Luke
has preserved them in his Gospel.

It is doubtless true that Luke s interest in the parables of
Jesus was largely that of a literary man who was charmed by
these matchless stories of the new life in the kingdom of God.
But he had also the interest of a sober theologian 4 to combat
the wild eschatological views of the time. Jesus at times used
the apocalyptic method and the eschatological motive, but it
was always with restraint and reserve. The teaching of Jesus
concerning the kingdom of God in Luke s report of the para
bles discountenances all millennial programmes and set times
for the second coming of Christ. The keynote of the parables
of Jesus in Luke s Gospel is personal salvation and growth of
Christian character. The larger aspect of the kingdom in its
social and world relations is present, but it is grounded in the
new life of the individual in Christ. The social redemption of

1 Carpenter, op. cit., p. 112.

2 The Jesus of History, p. 30.

3 Glover, The Meaning and Purpose of a Christian Society, p. 18.
4 McLachlan (St. Luke) has a chapter on " Luke the Theologian."

152 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

the race is the goal and Luke makes that clear. He has a
world outlook and a world sympathy, and Jesus stands forth
as the teacher for all the world and for all time with a pro
gramme for world reconstruction.

CHAPTER XII

AN HISTORIAN S IDEA OF THE DEITY OF JESUS 1
"Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" (Luke 3 : 22)

Luke had to face the problem of the person of Christ when
he decided to write his Gospel. The picture of Jesus Christ
was already drawn in the Logia of Matthew and in Mark s
Gospel, as we know. It was probably clearly presented in his
other sources. Luke had heard Paul and others preach that
Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. There was no escap
ing this question. Jesus himself had pressed his claim as the
Son of Man toward the close of his ministry, so that his enemies
and his friends took sides sharply. Luke tells the whole story
of the person of Christ as the issue was developed during the
life of Jesus and during the period covered by the Acts. He
has written an objective narrative, but he did not attempt to
conceal his own loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

1. The Jesus or Christ Controversy. Luke was not one of
the eye-witnesses 2 of Christ, but he was one of the witnesses 3
to the work of Christ. He was a critic of the effect of Christ s
personal influence on men who knew him in the flesh and who
worshipped him as God and Saviour. Luke had to face
squarely the problem of Jesus as the Christ (the Messiah). It
was put up to him by the eye-witnesses. Luke, as we have
seen, was not a Jew, and so was not expecting a Messiah. He
was not prejudiced against Jesus as were the Pharisees, with
their theory of a political and eschatological kingdom for the
Messiah. But the heathen myths made it more difficult, if
anything, for him to accept the facts about the incarnation of
Christ, the virgin birth, and Christ s resurrection from the
dead. Certainly, the emperor-worship was enough to disgust

1 The Expositor (London), 1920.

2 afi-rficrai. There is a striking example of aijTdxnjs in P. Oxy., VIII,
1154, 8 (late 1 A. D.), auT67crrj&lt;; Y&p e(ju TWV T6x&lt;ov xal oix ef^xl v[o]o&lt;; TWV
IvOdSs, translated by Moulton and Milligan: "For I am personally ac
quainted with these places, and am not a stranger here."

153

154 P LUKE THE HISTORIAN

any intelligent man, as it did most of the men of light of that
time. It was not easy for an educated man in Luke s day to
accept the deity of Jesus and to worship a man. The cross of
Jesus was a stumbling-block to the Jew and foolishness to the
Greek. Luke felt the force of both objections.

Luke is the typical man of culture of his time. He does not
tell the mental processes by which he came to take Jesus as
the Christ. But we may be sure that he would understand
the temper of the modern college man or woman who finds
difficulty in reconciling the deity of Jesus with modern Dar
winism. It was just as hard for Luke to make the person of
Christ square with the scientific theories of Galen and Hippoc
rates. We must try to understand the problems of the college
and university life of our day. I wish to recommend Mc-
Kenna s The Adventure of Life as a book admirably adapted to
help the really sincere spirits who wish to face the facts of
nature and of grace. This English physician and devout
Christian wrote his book in his den at the front in France in
the midst of death and life. He is a man after Luke s own
heart, and looks at all the facts with a calm and clear gaze.
He is an evolutionist and gives his conception of the develop
ment of the universe up to man. Then he finds a place for
Jesus, the Son of God, in the scientific universe of Darwin,
and he worships him as his saviour from sin. It is utterly
frank and very able and helpful. It is just as gratuitous to
accuse Luke of credulity as McKenna. One is bound to
believe that Luke had an experience of Christ in his heart and
life before he clearly grasped the conception of the person of
Christ. Glover in his Jesus of History likewise understands
Luke and the temper of modern young people of culture with
a craving to know Christ. We may be sure that Luke did not
write carelessly the tremendous statements concerning the
deity of Jesus. He writes in the light of his own extensive
researches, after long investigation of the claims and the power
of Christ, and out of a full heart. He had himself put Jesus
to the test in his own life. He had seen others live for Christ
and die for Christ. Luke loved his medical science, but he
loved Jesus more. He was a "doctor of the old school," who
was able to make the sick-room a sanctuary of God. He was
a partner with God and looked to the Great Physician to bless
his work.

THE DEITY OF JESUS 155

Luke wrote with the Logia before him. The Logia (Q) had
precisely the same elements 1 in its picture of Christ that we
find in the Gospel of John. 2 Mark 3 wrote before Luke, and
Mark s picture of Christ agrees with that of the Logia. Luke
was Paul s bosom friend. Luke knew Paul s idea of Christ.
So Luke had to face the Jesus or Christ controversy of mod
ern theologians. 4 He identified the theological Christ with
the historic Jesus. He did not do so blindly. From the be
ginning he found the evidence that convinced him. It is a
modern intellectual impertinence that men of culture do not
accept the deity of Jesus. Gladstone says that out of sixty
master minds that he knew, fifty-five of them took Jesus hum
bly as God and Saviour.

Luke the historian records his idea of the person of Christ.
He does not use Pauline terminology. He follows the lan
guage of his primitive sources. He lets us see that the witness
is very old and goes back to the very life of Christ. It is not
a theological dogma of a late date, invented to suit the deifica
tion of Jesus. Luke writes in a true historic spirit, and lets
us see how Jesus impressed the men of his time and how
Jesus regarded himself.

2. The Son of God. Luke does not write as a theologian.
He does not express his own views in theological language, as
Paul does in his Epistles. He makes no theological arguments
or definitions. He keeps his own personality in the back
ground, but he reveals his own views by the nature of the
material that he presents. We may agree or disagree with
Luke s picture of Christ, but he has drawn it with absolute
clearness and after mature reflection and with manifest convic
tion. He comes to the interpretation of Christ without Phar
isaic limitations and from the standpoint of a cosmopolitan.
Wright 5 thinks that Luke had conversations with John, the
author of the Fourth Gospel, since both mention the fact
that the sepulchre in which our Lord s body lay was a new
one, "where no one had yet lain" (Luke 23 : 53). He thinks

1 See my article, " The Christ of the Logia," in the Contemporary Review,
August, 1919.

2 See my Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John (1916).

3 See my Studies in Mark s Gospel (1919).

4 Cf . The Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909.

5 Hastings s Diet, of Christ and the Gospels.

156 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

that much of John s teaching was "esoteric, intended for ad
vanced disciples only/ but there are Johannean patches in
Luke s Gospel, as, for instance, Luke 10:21-24 (cf. Matt.
11:25-30). Be that as it may, it can be shown that Luke
conceived Jesus as the Son of God in the full sense of that
phrase. He has not written his Gospel to prove that thesis
as John has done in his Gospel (20 : 30 f.), but in numerous
instances he shows clearly what he means his readers to under
stand about Jesus.

Luke records the angel Gabriel as saying to Mary of the
promised child: "He shall be great, and shall be called the
son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him
the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the
house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no
end," (Luke 1 : 32-33). This is, to be sure, the Old Testament
picture in broad outline of the Messiah, but not the Pharisaic
conception. In II Sam. 7 : 5-17 Nathan s words to David
from Jehovah are recorded. David s son is to build Jehovah
a house and the throne of his kingdom is to be established
forever. This covenant with David is referred to at length
in Psalm 89, where it is interpreted in Messianic language.
Nearly all of the language of Christ s words to Peter in Matt.
16 : 18 f. appears in Psalm 89. We need not think that David
or Nathan or the author of Psalm 89 understood the language
about the perpetuity of the Davidic throne in the spiritual
sense as Jesus interprets it in Matt. 16 : 18 f. Luke clearly
understands the words of Gabriel to Mary in the sense of the
spiritual Israel that Paul teaches in Gal. 3 and Romans 9:11.
The context in Luke s Gospel shows that he means us to un
derstand that by "the son of the Most High" he is describing
the real deity of Jesus.

He is human on the side of his mother Mary, but is begot
ten of the Holy Spirit. When Mary expressed her wonder
and surprise, Gabriel replies: "The Holy Spirit shall come
upon thee, and shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the
holy thing which is begotten of thee shall be called the Son
of God" (Luke 1 : 35). The idea of the Shekinah is suggested
here (Ex. 40:38). "The cloud of glory signified the Divine
presence and power." 1 The unborn child is called "holy" as
free from all taint of sin. 2 There is no discounting the fact

1 Plummer, in loco. 8 Ibid.

THE DEITY OF JESUS 157

that Luke indorses these words of Gabriel as a true forecast
of the life of Jesus which he will present in his Gospel. Luke
believed the simple story of Mary about the birth of Jesus.
Thus he interprets the incarnation of the Son of God. Efforts
have been made to empty the words "the Son of God" 1 of
their natural content, but with no success. True, Adam is
called by Luke the Son of God in 3 : 38, but the context is
utterly different. God created Adam, but begot Jesus by the
Holy Spirit. Adam was not an incarnation of God, but God s
offspring, as all men are (Acts 17 : 28).

And then Elizabeth greets Mary as "the mother of my
Lord" 2 (Luke 1 : 43). Here the word "Lord" is not a mere
title of rank or even in the sense ascribed in the papyri so often
to Caesar, but it is the Old Testament usage as in Psalm 90 : 1.
Elizabeth means Messiah by Lord. Plummer 3 properly notes
that the expression "Mother of God" does not occur in the
Bible. Didon 4 wrongly translates the language of Luke 1 : 43
by "la mere de mon Dieu." But the Greek word for Lord in
the Septuagint commonly occurs for the Hebrew Jehovah.

The shepherds hear the angel describe the Babe of Bethle
hem as "a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord." 5 It is possible to
say that Luke, if translating an Aramaic source, whether oral
or written, may have followed the Septuagint in Lam. 4 : 20,
where "the anointed of the Lord" is rendered by "the Anointed
Lord." 6 The same peculiar expression occurs in Psalms of
Solomon 17:36. "The combination occurs nowhere else in
N. T., and the precise meaning is uncertain. Either Messiah,
Lord/ or Anointed Lord/ or the Messiah, the Lord/ or an
anointed one, a Lord/" 7 But it is, at any rate, plain that
the highest dignity is here ascribed to the child Jesus.

In Luke 2 : 26 we read that Simeon had had a revelation

1 utt&gt;&lt;; 8eo5. The use of 6 ulb? TOU Oeou would have made the point
clearer. Luke probably translates from the Aramaic. Deissmann (Bible
Studies, pf. 131) quotes an inscription of Cos with 6eou ulou Sepaorou for
Augustus and a Fayum papyrus (Pap. Berol. 7006) where xataapoq 6eou
ulou again refers to Augustus.

2 f) V^Tf)? Toi J xup(ou txou. The use of xpco&lt;; as imperial title is very common
in the papyri. See P. Oxy., 375 (A. D. 49) -rtpepfou xXauSfou xataapo? TOU
xupfou.

3 Comrn., p. 29. 4 Jesus Christ, p. 111. 6 owrPjp 8? &lt;JTIV xptaTbs x6ptoq.

6 xptcrcbq x6pto?. Cf . Ps. 90 : 1 and Sirach 51 : 10.

7 Plummer, in loco.

158 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

that he should not die before he had seen "the Lord s Christ 1 1
or "the Lord s Anointed" (cf. Lam. 4:20). Here the deity
of Jesus is not brought out save as it belongs to the word
"Anointed" or Messiah. One may compare Luke 9:20,
where Luke has "the Christ (the Anointed) of God" (Mark
8 : 29, "the Christ," Matt. 16 : 17, "the Christ, the Son of the
living God").

In Luke 2 : 49 the boy Jesus expresses surprise that Joseph
and Mary do not understand that "I must be in my Father s
house." 2 This is the correct translation, as the papyri show,
not "about my Father s business." But here is the Messianic
consciousness in the boy of twelve. God is his Father in a
sense not true of other men. The Jews later accused Jesus of
blasphemy for calling God "his own Father, and making him
self equal with God" (John 5 : 18).

At the baptism of Jesus "a voice came out of heaven, Thou
art my beloved Son; 3 in thee I am well pleased" (Luke 3 : 22 =
Mark 1 : 11 = Matt. 3: 17). It is possible that the voice of
the Father suggested Psalm 2 : 7, which D (Codex Bezae) here
follows. But it is beyond question that the Synoptic Gospels
here present the deity of Jesus as clearly as does the Gospel of
John. It is given, moreover, at the very beginning of Christ s
ministry, not merely at the close. It comes not as a new revela
tion to Jesus, but as confirmation of his peculiar relation to the
Father. John the Baptist saw the descent of the Holy Spirit as
the sign (John 1 : 33) and he heard the voice of the Father :
" And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of
God" (1 : 34). This is no mere Bath-Kol of the rabbis, an echo
of God s voice. It is not the Cerinthian Gnostic idea of an
emanation upon Jesus, the "Christ" coming upon the man
Jesus. Jesus does not here "become" God or the Son of God.
As the Son of God, he is recognized by the Father on the for
mal entrance upon his Messianic mission in the presence and
with the sanction of the forerunner. Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit unite on this august occasion in setting this seal upon
the solemn event.

In the temptations the devil twice (Luke 4 : 3, 9) challenges
Christ s relation to God by the words "If thou art the Son of

1 tbv xpt&lt;rrbv xupfau.

2 ev TOC&lt;; TOU TOZTp6&lt;; [xou 8st slvtxi [is.

THE DEITY OF JESUS 159

God " l or, more exactly, " If thou art Son of God." There is no
article with Son in the Greek. There is undoubted allusion
to the voice of the Father at the baptism (Luke 3 : 22), but
the reference is "to the relationship to God, rather than to
the office of Messiah." 2 The condition, being of the first
class, 3 assumes the fact of Christ s peculiar relationship to
God, though possibly enjoyed by others. The devil does not
throw doubt on his own temptation, but seeks to incite doubt
in Jesus by urging him to prove that he is in reality God s
Son by the exercising of the power of God.

In the discourse in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4 : 16-30)
Jesus read from the roll of Isaiah (61:1-2; 58:6) and defi
nitely claims that this Messianic passage is fulfilled in him
(Luke 4:21). There is no specific claim to deity here save
as that is involved in Christ s conception of the Messiah. " In
applying these words to Himself the Christ looks back to His
baptism. He is more than a Prophet; He is the Son, the
Beloved One, of Jehovah" (3 : 21, 22). 4

The Pharisees challenged the right of Christ to forgive sins by
saying: "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Luke 5 : 21).
Jesus does not dispute the point raised, but accepts the chal
lenge and heals the man on purpose, "that ye may know that
the Son of Man hath authority on earth to forgive sins"
(5 : 24). He acts on his own authority in perfect accord with
the will of God (John 5 : 19, 21). He allows the Pharisees and
the people to draw the conclusion that he claims divine pre
rogatives.

In Luke 6 : 5 Jesus claims to be "Lord of the Sabbath," with
power to change or cancel the day as it suits best his work.
This is not a direct claim to equality with God, but is a revo
lutionary position from the usual Pharisaic theology which
made men slaves of the Sabbath.

One does not care to press the point in the language of the
demoniac in Luke 8 : 28, who says : " Jesus, thou Son of the
Most High God." The word "God" is not certain in the
text, and "Most High" is a common name for Jehovah among
heathen nations. 5 Perhaps the man was a heathen. The

1 si ulbq e! TOO 0sou. Note emphatic position of uibq. On absence of arti
cle, see Robertson, Grammar, p. 781.

2 Plummer, in loco. 3 Cf. Robertson, Grammar, p. 1009.

4 Plummer, in loco. 6 See proof in Plummer s Comm., p. 229.

160 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

demoniacs quickly acknowledge the deity of Jesus, a fact that
was turned against Jesus by the rabbis, who used it as a proof
that he was in league with the devil. But Luke records the
fact and lets his readers draw their own inferences. Devil
and demons alike acknowledge Jesus as God s Son in Luke s
Gospel.

We have already seen that in Luke 9 : 20 Peter addresses
Jesus as "the Christ of God," while Matt. 16:16 has "the
Christ, the Son of the living God." Luke s briefer form in
volves Matthew s longer report.

On the Mount of Transfiguration Luke (9 : 35) records that
"a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is my Son, my
chosen; hear ye him." Here many manuscripts, 1 like
Matt. 17:5 and Mark 9:7, have "my beloved Son" as in
Luke 3 : 22. But the variation in the verbal or participle cuts
no figure in the testimony of the Father to the peculiar sonship 2
of Jesus. Luke has points of his own concerning this great
event (Christ s praying, the talk about Christ s decease).

In Luke 10 : 22 (= Matt. 11 : 27) Jesus claims equality with
the Father by the use of "the Father," "the Son," as so often
in John s Gospel (cf. 5: 19-20). "And it contains the whole
of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. It is like * an aerolite
from the Johannean heaven ; 3 and for that very reason it causes
perplexity to those who deny the solidarity between the Johan
nean heaven and the Synoptic earth." 4

When on trial before the Sanhedrin Jesus is finally asked
pointedly by Caiaphas if he is the Christ (Luke 22 : 67) and
then by all: "Art thou then the Son of God?" (22 : 70). To
this he replied, "Ye say that I am," a virtual affirmative.
Luke only gives the ratification after dawn (22 : 66) of the
illegal condemnation before day given in detail by Matthew
and Mark. Matthew (26:63) represents Christ as put on
oath by Caiaphas to tell "whether thou be the Christ, the Son
of God," to which Jesus gives an affirmative answer (Matt.
26 : 64; Mark 14 : 62). It is all perfunctory repetition in Luke,
but the same point is clearly made that Jesus before the San
hedrin solemnly claims to be the Son of God. On this con
fession of his the vote was twice taken to convict him of blas
phemy. Clearly, therefore, the Sanhedrin understood Jesus to

1 A C D P R. 2 6 u!6? txou. Note article.

3 Hase, Geschichte Jesu, p. 527. 4 Plummer, p. 282.

THE DEITY OF JESUS 161

make divine claims. Jesus had said in so many words: "But
from henceforth shall the Son of Man be seated at the right
hand of the power of God" (22:69). "In the allusion to
Daniel 7 : 13 they recognize a claim to Divinity." l In simple
truth Luke records that the Sanhedrin voted Jesus to be
worthy of death because he claimed to be the Son of God, and
so equal with God.

Once more Luke represents the risen Christ as claiming
that he is the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy, whose suf
ferings were already foretold (Luke 24 : 26, 46).

The case is made out with abundant clearness that Luke s
Gospel gives us a picture of one who claimed to be the Son of
God in the full sense of that phrase. Luke presents the real
deity of Jesus, not the mere divinity of humanity. In a word,
Jesus is the Son of God in the same sense that he appears in
the Fourth Gospel, though John s philosophical language in
the Prologue is not employed. We see this conception of
Christ in Mary s memorials in chapters 1 and 2, in the portions
of Luke drawn from Mark and from Q, in the Perean and
passion narratives. It is futile to try to make Luke s Christ
a mere man, even the best of men. From the virgin birth to
the ascension we see the Son of God limned by Luke the
painter and the historian.

3. The Son of Man. But Luke is not a Docetic Gnostic any
more than a Cerinthian Gnostic. If Jesus is the Son of God
in Luke s Gospel, he is none the less the Son of Man. Jesus
is a real man and not a make-believe man without genuine
humanity. Luke s Gospel is that of "Jesus, our Brother-
Man." 2 The Jesus of Luke s Gospel is no pale-faced dreamer
out of touch with his environment. As a physician Luke takes
special delight in showing the phases and features of his human
birth and development side by side with the manifest deity of
Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the child of Mary and is from the most humble sur
roundings, with no comforts for mother or child (Luke 2 : 4-7).
Here we see the physician s tender interest in the details of
the birth.

Like any other child, Jesus "grew, and waxed strong, filled
with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him" (2:40).

1 Plummer, p. 519.

2 Hayes, Synoptic Gospels and Acts, p. 253.

162 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Luke alone gives the picture of the boy Jesus in the temple
and his obedience to Joseph and Mary. " And Jesus advanced
in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man"
(2 : 52). Luke does not moralize or dogmatize about the
wonder of these words. With wondrous skill he helps us to
see the human growth of the Son of God, who is also the Son
of Man.

The tender sympathy of Jesus is apparent at every turn in
Luke s Gospel in his love for sinners and his pity for the sick
and the suffering. Luke pictures Jesus as weeping over Jeru
salem, that was to reject him (19 : 41-44). Luke says that in
the agony in Gethsemane "his sweat became as it were great
drops of blood falling down upon the ground" (22 : 44). Even
after the resurrection of Jesus Luke emphasizes the fact that
Jesus was more than a mere ghost by his asking his disciples to
handle him and by his eating a piece of broiled fish (24 : 38-43),
difficult as it is to comprehend this transition stage in the
body of Christ.

Like the other Gospels, Luke s Gospel reports Jesus as
claiming to be the Son of Man, and yet no one of the Evangel
ists calls Jesus by this term. It is always used by Christ in
the more than eighty instances in the Gospels. This agree
ment is not mere coincidence, and argues strongly for the
genuineness of the language. And yet there is great agree
ment among modern scholars as to the origin and the signifi
cance of the expression. Abbott has an exhaustive treatment
of every phase of the subject in his notable monograph. 1 It is
vain to try to find the Aramaic barnasha, a man, any one, in
some of the crucial passages in the Gospels, however possible
in others. It is plain in Luke, as in the other Gospels, that
Christ s enemies understood him to make a Messianic claim
by the use of "the Son of Man." That is seen in Luke 22 : 69
where Jesus calls himself "the Son of Man," who will "be
seated at the right hand of the power of God." The Sanhedrin
then retort: "Art thou then the Son of God?" The two
terms are not interchangeable, but evidently there is a bond
of unity. If Jesus had simply claimed to be a man, there
would be no meaning in the question. So also in John 12 : 34
the multitude identify "the Christ" (Messiah) with "Son of
Man." In the Book of Enoch the Son of Man has a Messianic

1 The Son of Man, or Contributions to the Study of the Thoughts of Jesus.

THE DEITY OF JESUS 163

connotation, though it is not clear whether all of the book is
pre-Christian or not. The word occurs in Ezekiel as his title
and it is in Daniel 7 : 13 f. as "one like a Son of Man." The
expression emphasizes the humanity of Christ and also hia
representative position as the ideal and perfect man. But it
also presents in popular apprehension the claim to the Mes-
siahship without using the technical word Messiah. Thus
Jesus avoided a technical issue with his enemies till his hour
had come. But the very phrase that reveals the true human
ity of Jesus implies that he is more than a man. The Son of
Man is the Son of God, else he could not really be the Son of
Man.

So, then, Luke really means that Jesus in his human life,
though absolutely genuine, is in a state of voluntary humilia
tion, as Paul explains in II Cor. 8:9 and Phil. 2:5-11. He
had the limitations of weariness and suffering and sorrow and
pain and death. Jesus battled with wrong at every turn.
He clashed with the ecclesiastical hypocrites of the time who
crucified him for his spiritual reality and hostility to sham.
In his very humanity Jesus reveals his deity and is the hope
of the race.

4. The Saviour of Sinners. Christ is the great humanitarian
of the ages, but he is more. Jesus has drawn the picture of
the good Samaritan with his disregard for caste and race and
religious prejudice and his sheer pity for a man in trouble.
Jesus was the friend of the poor, of the sick, of the suffering.
The lepers were not afraid to draw nigh to him. The blind
cried out after Jesus when he passed by. Even the dead heard
his voice and came back to life. Jesus brought health and
healing at every step. He carried light and life with him to
all who wished it. Jesus is the true philanthropist. Nowhere
is he pictured with such attractive power as he went about
doing good as in Luke s Gospel. The very heart of Luke
went out to Jesus in his deeds of mercy.

But there is a deeper note than all this blessed work of social
amelioration. Jesus is the saviour from sin in Luke s Gospel.
He is the friend of publicans and sinners, not to condone their
sins or to join in them, but to win them from their sins. Luke s
Christ is Mr. H. G. Wells s "Limited God" right down in the
midst of sinners, right down in the trenches, struggling and
fighting evil in its lair. Jesus not merely has sympathy with

164 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

the suffering and the sinful. He has love for the souls of the
lost. He has power to help men. Jesus sees the cross ahead
of him as the way to win the lost. He makes the plain predic
tion (9 : 43 f .) to Peter (Luke 9 : 20-27) and repeats it. He
knows the cost of redemption from sin and he means to pay
the price with his life. It is no mythical "dying god" of the
autumn who rises, according to the myth, in the spring, as the
mystery religions teach. Jesus sees his baptism of death
(12 : 49-53) before it comes. Jesus is conscious that he is
dying for men (22 : 19 ff.). Substitution is not so hard to
understand now as it was before the Great War. Luke s
account of the death on the cross (23 : 32-54) and of the
resurrection from the dead is all in harmony with the Pauline
gospel of the death of Christ for the salvation of the sinner.
In Luke we have the Son of God and the Son of Man giving
himself as the victim of sin to save the sinner. The Gospel of
Luke has often been called the Gospel of Sacrifice. "The Son
of Man must suffer many things" (Luke 9:22). And Jesus
himself will explain to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus :
" Behoved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter
into his glory?" (24:26).

5. The Captain of Our Salvation. Luke gives us a Christ
with a world programme. The risen Christ on Olivet (a
wondrous picture) interprets his sufferings, death and resur
rection as preliminary to the proclamation of repentance and
remission of sins to the whole world (Luke 24:46-49). The
disciples were to tarry in Jerusalem till clothed with power
from on high, and then they were to fare forth to the conquest
of the world. The Gospel closes with this promise of divine
energy (power, dunamis, dynamite) to carry out this vast
undertaking. The Acts opens with the same promise of the
Father for which they were to wait, but which was near, and
which did come at the great Pentecost. Jesus did not leave
the disciples in gloom. They were in darkness at his death,
but were full of joy at his ascension (Luke 24:52). The
greatest revolution in human history took place in the short
space of fifty days. Defeat was turned into victory. The
cross became the sign of conquest.

Jesus lives as the leader of men with the forward look, who
hope for better days and better men. Luke s Christ is the
risen Jesus, who carries on the work that he began (Acts 1:1).

THE DEITY OF JESUS 165

The Acts, like the Gospel, records the words and deeds of
Jesus. This is Luke s conception of Christ. He would prob
ably not have written those two books at all if they only
recorded ancient history that was over and done. Luke had
a profound conviction that he was recording the origin of a
movement that was to go to the uttermost part of the earth.
The kingdom of Christ was to overturn the kingdom of
Satan. Christ was to overcome Caesar. Luke saw victory in
the future. Hence he wrote. He lived to see the proof of the
promise. The Acts justifies the Gospel. Paul answered the
call of Christ. The Roman Empire would fall at the feet of
Jesus. The conflict was to be longer than Luke knew, but he
was sure that in the end of the day Jesus would win, for he is
the Son of God who is now leading the forces of righteousness
on earth from his throne in heaven.

The Holy Spirit is the vicegerent of Christ on earth, not
the Pope of Rome. The Holy Spirit is the power of Christ
on earth for all men who will let him use them. So the battle
goes on. The programme of Christ is not yet completed. He
is coming back some day. But that promise and that hope
should be an incentive to greater zeal in carrying out Christ s
programme, not a sedative to endeavor. Optimism, not pes
simism, is the key-note of Luke s Gospel and the Acts. Jesus
is risen and reigns. Paul carries the Gospel over the Roman
Empire. You and I are to carry the torch to the uttermost
part of the earth. We have Luke s Gospel with its wondrous
picture of Christ to take with us. We have the Acts with the
marvellous story of the power of the Holy Spirit to cheer us.
Jesus is king. Let us crown him. That is what Luke means
by his Gospel and Acts.

CHAPTER XIII

POINTS OF CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 1

" Now, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pon
tius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of
Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Iturea and
Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priest
hood of Annas and Caiaphas " (Luke 3 : 1-3).

1. The Beginning of John s Ministry. Ancient historians
had great difficulty in giving precise dates for historical events.
Chronological data give modern scholars no end of trouble.
The ancient writers often made little effort to give the exact
time. The years were counted in so many different ways.
The commonest way is that pursued by Luke in his Gospel,
3 : 1-3, where by seven synchronisms he dates the beginning
of the active ministry of the Baptist. Evidently Luke is tak
ing pains to make plain when John began his work and when
Jesus entered upon his ministry. Jesus was "about thirty
years old" (Luke 3:23). John was six months older than
Jesus (1 : 26). John was thus probably about thirty when he
began his ministry. If we assume that the crucifixion of
Jesus took place at the Passover of A. D. 30 and that there
were four Passovers in the ministry of Jesus, "we reach the
conclusion that the synchronisms of Luke 3 : 1, 2 are calculated
for the summer (say July) of A. D. 26." 2 There is no trouble
with any of the seven names given by Luke save those of
Tiberius and Lysanias. Luke has been sharply criticised for
alleged blunders concerning these two rulers, as he has been
for his mention of Quirinius in Luke 2:2. We have seen how
Luke has been triumphantly vindicated about Quirinius and
the census of Augustus. This victory for Luke should at
least make us pause before attacking him blindly.

Now Tiberius began to reign in A. D. 14, upon the death
of Augustus. The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,
however, gives us the year A. D. 28, not A. D. 26, two years

1 The Methodist Review (Nashville), Oct., 1920.
2 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 386,
166

CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 167

later than the other data call for. Has Luke made a slip here ?
We know from Suetonius (Tib. xxi) that Tiberius was asso
ciated with Augustus in the administration of the provinces. 1
Tacitus (Ann. I, iii, 3) speaks of Tiberius as " son, colleague in
empire, consort in tribunician power." 2 Besides, some coins
of Antioch, not accepted as genuine by Eckert, count Tiberius s
rule from A. D. 12 instead of A. D. 14. Plummer 3 is doubtful,
but is inclined to think that Luke means to count from A. D. 14,
not A. D. 12. The argument from silence is always pre
carious. The Romans counted the beginning of a reign on the
death of a previous ruler. But in the case of Titus it was not
done. Ramsay 4 argues that thus we get a clew to the date of
Acts: "So that Luke, being familiar with that method, applied
it in the case of Tiberius. Now that was the case with Titus.
His reign began from the association with his father on 1st
July, A. D. 71." That is plausible, to be sure, but it is not the
only interpretation of the fact about Titus. If it was done
with Titus, as we know, it may have been done with Tiberius,
though we have no other knowledge of it. If others did it in
the case of Titus, Luke could do it in the case of Tiberius,
even if he did not know of the Titus case when he wrote.
Luke lived in the provinces where Tiberius shared the rule
with Augustus. We must remember Quirinius and the census
again before we dare to convict Luke of a blunder concerning
Tiberius.

The difficulty about Lysanias is more acute. Plummer 5 puts
the case clearly: "Not merely Strauss, Gfrorer, B. Baur and
Hilgenfeld, but even Keim and Holtzmann, attribute to Luke
the gross chronological blunder of supposing that Lysanias, son
of Ptolemy, who ruled this region previous to B. C. 36, when
he was killed by M. Antony, is still reigning sixty years after
his death." That is the charge, put baldly and bluntly.
What can be said in reply? Carpenter 6 admits that "it is in
any case possible that the reference to Lysanias is a chrono
logical error." It is even suggested that Luke "somewhat
carelessly read Josephus" (Ant. XX, vii, 1) where he says that
Trachonitis and Abila "had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias."

1 Ut provincias cum Augusto communiter administraret.

2 Filius t collega imperil, consors tribunicice potestati adsumilur.

3 Comm., p. 82. St. Paul the Traveller, p. 387.

B Comm., p. 84. 6 Christianity According to S. Luke, p. 229.

168 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Carpenter admits that it is possible that there was a second
Lysanias, a tetrarch. Plummer notes the pure assumption
that only one Lysanias ruled in those parts. Critics had over
looked the fact that Lysanias, son of Ptolemy, was king, not
tetrarch, as Luke and Josephus say. Besides, an inscription
has been known for a century that ought to have taught critics
the truth. Plummer notes "that at the time Tiberius was
associated with Augustus there was a tetrarch Lysanias. 5 " 1
Moffatt 2 called special attention to the bearing of this inscrip
tion, a new and improved copy, found at Suk Wadi Barada,
the site of Abila. It is the dedication of a temple and has the
words "on behalf of the salvation of the Lords Imperial and
their whole household" by "Nymphaios a freedman of Lysa
nias the tetrarch." Ramsay 3 has seized upon the new copy
with avidity and shows that "the Lords Imperial" can only
be "Tiberius and Julia" (his mother). Julia Augusta died
A. D. 29, and the time of this inscription must come in between
A. D. 14 and A. D. 29. Here, then, is an inscription from
Abila itself, which says plainly that there was a tetrarch
Lysanias in Abilene at the very time to which Luke refers.
Plummer had already said that such a mistake on Luke s part
was "very improbable." Now we know that it is the subjec
tive critics who were wrong, not Luke. Once more the very
stones have leaped up from the ground and have cried out in
defense of the historical accuracy of Luke concerning Lysanias
the tetrarch.

2. The Length of Christ s Stay in the Tomb. There are vari
ous other chronological problems in Luke s Gospel, such as the
three journeyings to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51; 13:22; 17:11),
interpreted by some as only one, but most likely the three
mentioned in John (7:2ff.; ll:17f.; 12:1). Lieutenant-
Colonel G. Mackinlay 4 seeks to prove that Luke has three
parallel narratives. I have endeavored to show 5 that Luke
(like Matthew and Mark) really has the death of Christ on
the same day as John, and ate the Passover at the regular time.
Luke agrees with all the Gospels as to the length of Christ s
stay in the tomb, but makes the matter clearer than any of

1 Cf . Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. Gr., 4523, 4521.

2 The Expositor, January, 1913.

3 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 298. 4 A Difficulty Removed, 1919.
6 Broadus s Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 253-7.

CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 169

them. Luke notes (23 : 54) that the day of the death and
burial of Jesus "was the day of the Preparation, and the Sab
bath drew on" (or dawned). The word for "Preparation" x is
to-day the name for Friday in modern Greek. It was the
technical name for the day before the Sabbath. The word for
"drew on" 2 literally means the coming of light, but it was
used not simply of the dawning of the twelve-hour day, but
also of the twenty-four-hour day. Matthew (28 : 1) uses it as
Luke does here: "Now late on the Sabbath day, as it began
to dawn toward the first day of the week." The first day
began at sundown, the Jewish way of reckoning. Luke adds
that "on the Sabbath they (the women) rested according to
the commandment." Thus we have a part of Friday after
noon (the burial) and all of the Sabbath day. Then Luke adds
(24 : 1) : "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, 3 they
came unto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had pre
pared" (cf. Matt. 28 : 1 and Mark 16 : 1). At sunrise (Mark
16 : 1 ; John 20 : 1) Jesus was already risen from the tomb.
It is not possible to escape this piece of chronology as Luke
has recorded it, unless Luke is in error. There is no evidence
that he is incorrect. The use of "after three days" a few
times cannot set aside so plain a narrative. Luke represents
Christ as saying that he rose on the third day (24: 7). Luke
has "on the third day" (9:22) where Mark (10:34) has
"after three days." Free vernacular in all languages uses the
fuller phrase without meaning full seventy-two hours. "On
the third day" cannot be understood as meaning "on the
fourth day," while ."after three days" can be understood to
mean "on the third day." So the matter stands against all
theories to the contrary.

3. Theudas. The case of Theudas is a test case of one s
confidence in Luke. As yet there is no clear solution of the
apparent contradiction between Luke and Josephus. In Acts
5 : 36 f . Luke mentions the revolt of Judas the Galilean as
after the revolt of Theudas. Josephus 4 mentions both of
them in the same order as Luke (Theudas and Judas), though
twenty lines apart, but Josephus explains that the revolt of
Judas took place in the time of the great census under Quirinius
in A. D. 6, while the revolt under Theudas occurred under the

1 xapowxeu^j.

SpOpou pae&os. Ant. XX, v, 1 f.

170 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

Emperor Claudius, when Cuspius Fadus was Roman procura
tor (A. D. 44-46). Luke not only has the chronology reversed,
but reports Gamaliel as speaking of the revolt of Theudas
that, according to Josephus, took place some thirty years
after his speech.

One explanation is that Luke read Josephus and was misled
by the mere order there, and failed to see the real dates, and
so misrepresented Josephus. But that makes Luke very care
less in this use of Josephus, if he did use him. But the differ
ences are so great that scholars like Schuerer, 1 who dates Luke
after Josephus, say that Luke either did not read Josephus at
all or forgot all that he had read. 2 We have seen already that
Luke in all probability wrote the Acts before 70 A. D. So we
may dismiss the idea of any use of Josephus.

But the discrepancy remains. It is suggested by some that
Luke merely reports Gamaliel, who is responsible for the error,
if it is one. But Luke would hardly let it pass in that case
with no comment.

At bottom we are called on to choose between the accuracy
of Luke and of Josephus, unless both are right. Both can only
be right on the hypothesis that there were two men by the
name of Theudas who raised a revolt. Rackham 3 thinks that
" in all probability both are right. There were similar disturb
ances throughout this period, as Josephus himself testifies.
Theudas is a contracted form, which may stand for a number
of names Theodotus, Theodosius, Theodorus, etc., so it is
quite possible that different persons are referred to." Ram
say 4 holds that "there is no real difficulty in believing that
more than one impostor may have borne or taken the name
Theudas." Nosgen 5 observes that "Josephus describes four
men bearing the name Simon within forty years, and three
that of Judas within ten years, all of whom were instigators of
rebellion."

But, suppose both do refer to the same man and event, who
is to be believed? Furneaux 6 says: "There is no reason for
doubting the accuracy of Josephus chronology at this point;
and the remarkable accuracy of Luke s historical narrative is

1 Lucas und Josephs (Zeitschrift f, Krit. Theol, 1876, p. 574).

2 Cf . Sanday, Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 278.

8 Comm., p. 74. * Was Christ Born at Bethlehem f, p. 259.

6 Apostelgeschichte, p. 147. 6 fiomm., in loco.

CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 171

no sufficient ground for denying the possibility of inaccuracy
in a speech composed, at least to some extent, by himself. "
We are not assuming in our studies that Luke could not be
inaccurate in any particular. We only ask that he be treated
as fairly as Josephus. Who has the best reputation as a reli
able historian, Luke or Josephus? To-day Luke stands far
above Josephus. "In his Antiquities Josephus corrects many
mistakes which he made in his earlier work on the Jewish
War." 1

But in all candor we must admit that this difficulty has not
yet been solved. "We have to leave the difficulty unsolved.
We must hope for the discovery of further evidence. Mean
time, no one who finds Luke to be a trustworthy historian in
the rest of his History will see any difficulty hi this passage."
Thus Ramsay 2 avows his willingness to trust Luke till he is
proven to be wrong. That has not been done as to Acts 5 : 36 f .
Luke has won the right to be credited till he is shown to be in
error. We can wait here for further light.

4. Paul s Visits to Jerusalem. There are certainly four,
probably five, of these visits of Paul to the Jewish metropolis
after his conversion (Acts 9:26-30; ll:29f. and 12:25;
15 : 2-29; probably 18 : 22; 21 : 17-23 : 30). In themselves they
offer no difficulty. It is only when we turn to Galatians that
trouble arises. In Galatians 1 : 18 and 2 : 1 Paul speaks of
two visits to Jerusalem. The visit in Acts 9 : 26 and Gal. 1 : 18
is the same. But where does Gal. 2 : 1 come in ? Is it the
visit in Acts 11 : 29 or 15 : 2 ? Galatians was certainly written
before the visits in Acts 18 : 22 and 21 : 17. It would not seem
to matter much except that in Gal. 2 : 1-10 and Acts 15 : 2-29
the Judaizing controversy is up for discussion. Lake, 3 how
ever, denies this and says "the subject is not the same at all."
He holds that in Galatians the subject "is merely whether the
mission to the uncircumcised should be continued, while in
Acts the circumcision of the Gentiles is the main point." But
surely that is a misapprehension of Gal. 2 : 1-10, where Paul
so stoutly refused to allow Titus to be circumcised on the
demand of the timid brethren to satisfy the Judaizers. Ram
say has urged that Paul means that he was not compelled to

1 Rackham, Comm., note 2, p. 74.

2 Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 259.

* Hastings s Diet, of the Ap. Ch. (" Acts ").

172 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

circumcise Titus, but did it voluntarily. But that theory
makes incomprehensible Paul s vehemence in the matter.

Quite a group of modern scholars obviate the apparent con
tradiction between the two reports in Gal. 2 : 1-10 and Acts
15 : 2-29, by making them accounts of different events. It is
argued that in Gal. 2 : 1-10 Paul really has in mind the visit
to Jerusalem in Acts 11 : 29. It is urged that this view is
necessary because Paul in Galatians records all the visits that
he made to Jerusalem. But that is not the point in Galatians.
There Paul is asserting his independence of the Twelve Apos
tles and showing that his authority was on a par with theirs.
He mentions in Gal. 1 : 18 f . that he saw only Cephas of the
Twelve, and made only a pleasant visit. In Acts 11 : 29 f.
only "the elders" are mentioned. It is possible that the
Apostles were absent on this occasion. If so, Paul would not
need to refer to this visit. Lightfoot in his Commentary on
Galatians has made a powerful argument for the identification
of Gal. 2:1-10 with Acts 15:2-29. His view is that in
Galatians Paul refers to the private conference that took
place between the two public gatherings, in which Paul won
Peter, James and John to his view of Gentile freedom from
Jewish ceremonialism. This is what concerned Paul s argu
ment. In Acts Luke is not interested in that point, but nar
rates the public gatherings when the programme was carried
through. On the whole, this view still seems to be the most
plausible explanation of the situation. One has only to keep
clearly before him the purpose of Luke in the Acts.

It is not necessary here to discuss what was done at the
Jerusalem conference in Acts 15, and whether the text in D is
to be followed which omits "things strangled," and adds the
golden rule in negative form. This text makes no demands
of the Gentiles at all save purely moral issues (fornication,
murder, idolatry). On the whole, the other text is most likely
genuine.

It is even argued by some that Galatians was written before
the conference in Acts 15, and so Gal. 2 : 1-10 could not refer
to the same event. This view is advocated by Round, 1 Emmet, 2
Bartlet, 3 Lake 4 and Ramsay. 5 But M. Jones 6 holds that

1 The Date of Galatians. * Comm. on Galatians.

8 Apostolic Age, p. 84. 4 Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul.

6 Expositor, viii, 5, pp. 127 f . 6 N. T. in Twentieth Century, p. 248.

CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 173

such a view utterly discredits Luke. "Acts has, however, an
equal claim to be heard on this point, and if the early date of
Galatians is adopted it becomes exceedingly difficult to credit
the author with any historical accuracy, much less regard
him as a historian of first rank." Jones is not able to under
stand how Ramsay, in particular, "the strongest living advo
cate of the historical value of Acts," is able to reconcile the
early date of Galatians "with the repudiation of his (Luke s)
clear statement which this date of Galatians involves." Jones 1
feels that "the historical value of the book reaches its climax
in the discussion of the story of the Apostolic Council in Jeru
salem in Acts 15." The very fact that Ramsay has come
round to the early date of Galatians and still takes the view
that Luke s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthi
ness 2 is enough to make one pause. But, on the whole, I
sympathize with Jones in his contention that the straight
forward narrative of events in Acts calls for a date for Gala
tians subsequent to the Jerusalem conference. We are not
called upon here to settle the Galatian controversy, but only
to say that it is gratuitous from the standpoint of Acts to
create a difficulty by the early date of Galatians which does
not exist on the theory of the late date. The data in Gala
tians are wholly indecisive in themselves and readily allow the
later date between II Corinthians and Romans which Light-
foot proposed. That theory leaves both Paul and Luke intelli
gible and reliable. It is not scientific and fair to Luke to foist
upon Acts a view of Galatians that throws his historical data
into a jumble. Once more we can say that Luke s credit as a
historian is too great to be upset by a mere speculative theory
as to the date of Galatians. I am not willing to say with
Jones 3 that, "if the Epistle to the Galatians was written at
this period, St. Luke must have entirely misconceived the
situation, and he ceases to have any claim to our respect as a
serious historian." But I do say that Luke s proved veracity
as a historian stops the acceptance of a mere theory, by no
means the most probable one, of the date of Galatians. Luke

1 Ibid., p. 242.

2 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 81.

3 Op. cit., p. 249. Jones stands by this position against Plooij, who
also adopts the view that Galatians is before the Jerusalem conference in
Acts 15 (Expositor, June, 1919, pp. 444 f.).

174 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

is entitled to that much consideration unless the earlier date
can be proved true beyond controversy.

5. The Death of Herod Agrippa I and the Famine in Judea.
In Acts 11 : 27-30 Luke mentions the prophecy of the famine
by Agabus and the contribution to the poor saints in Jerusalem
by the Gentile (Greek) Church in Antioch which Barnabas and
Saul turned over to the elders. Luke does not specifically say
that the famine had actually begun when the money was sent,
but Ramsay 1 rejects Lightfoot s view that the money was
brought a year or more before the famine as not " a natural or
a useful procedure." What was the date of the famine?
Josephus (Ant. XX, v) places it in the procuratorship of
Alexander, which ended in A. D. 48 and could not have begun
before 45. So, then, A. D. 46 is the probable year. Orosius
(VII, vi), a writer of the fifth century, locates the beginning of
the famine in the fourth year of Claudius, which would be
A. D. 45. The beginning of the current year of reckoning has
always to be borne in mind, and Ramsay 2 notes a failure
always to do this in Turner s "Chronology of the N. T." in
Hastings s D. B. So, then, the years 45 and 46 can very well
be the years of the famine.

^ Luke (Acts 12 : 20-23) gives the death of Herod before men
tioning the return of Barnabas and Saul to Antioch (12 : 25),
though verse 24 suggests an interim of some sort, and verse 25
really belongs to the story of chapter 13. The precise sequence
of events in chapters 11 and 12 is not clear. Herod Agrippa
killed James the brother of John (12:2) and put Peter in
prison, who, on his miraculous release, left the city (12: 17).
Was this persecution of the Apostles by Herod after the visit
of Barnabas and Saul or before? The coins 3 say that Herod
Agrippa I reigned nine years, while Josephus asserts that he
died in the seventh year of his reign. The coins are considered
spurious by some, and others think that Josephus reckons
from A. D. 39, when the tetrarchy of Antipas was added to
the rule of Herod, instead of 37, when he was appointed king
of the tetrarchy of Philip. In A. D. 41 Judea, Samaria and
Abilene were added, so that till A. D. 44 Herod Agrippa I
ruled over all of Palestine. Josephus contradicts himself in

1 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 69.

2 Was Christ Born at Bethlehem f, p. 222 f.

3 Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 130.

CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 175

the War and the Antiquities. On the whole, A. D. 44 appears
as the most likely date for the death of Herod (so Turner).

If this is true, we must think of the events of Acts 12 : 1-23
(up to the death of Herod in A. D. 44) as happening before the
famine in Judea of Acts 11 : 27-30 (A. D. 45-46) with the visit
of Barnabas and Saul. In that case, the Apostles had left
Jerusalem, and Barnabas and Saul performed their mission
with the elders (11 : 30) and went back to Antioch with John
Mark (12 : 25). The story is intelligible and Luke is con
sistent. These two dates (A. D. 44 and 45-46) give us a fairly
definite point of contact between Luke s narrative and the
outside world.

6. The Expulsion of the Jews from Rome. In Acts 18 : 2
Luke says that Aquila and his wife Priscilla had "lately come
from Italy," "because Claudius had commanded all the Jews
to depart from Rome." Paul found them in Corinth on his
arrival there from Athens (18: 1 f.). Here again Luke gives
a point of contact with general history. When were the Jews
expelled from Rome? Suetonius 1 mentions the event, but
gives no date. Josephus and Tacitus fail to mention the fact.
If Suetonius had not done so, this would have been another
error charged up to Luke. Orosius (VII, vi, 15) says that it
was in the ninth year of Claudius, which would put it about
A. D. 50 as he counted the years. 2 This year suits very well
Luke s narrative in Acts 18 : 1 f.

7. Gallio s Proconsulship.Luke (Acts 18 : 12 ff.) says that
Paul was brought to trial in Corinth "when Gallio was pro
consul of Achaia." Turner in his notable article on the
"Chronology of the N. T." (Hastings s D. .) had concluded
that Gallio entered upon his proconsulship probably not before
A. D. 50. But Deissmann in his St. Paul 3 has discussed the
meaning of an inscription at Delphi, which refers to Gallio as
proconsul, with the date the 26th "acclamation" of the Em
peror Claudius. A Russian, A. Nikitsky, first published this
inscription, 4 but Deissmann has shown 5 that "St. Paul must
have come to Corinth in the first month of the year 50, and
left Corinth late in the summer of the year 51," unless, for-

1 Claudius, 25. Judceos, impulsore Christo, assidue tumultuantes Roma
expulsit.

2 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ?, p. 223. 3 Appendix I.

4 Epigraphical Studies at Delphi, 1898. *0p. cit., p. 256.

176 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

sooth, the years are 51 and 52 respectively. 1 The date of the
27th acclamation of Claudius is known by an inscription to be
August 1, A. D. 52. So, then, Gallio was proconsul before
that date. We know that "the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th acclama
tions all came in the llth tribunician year" of Claudius (Lake),
which was January 25, A. D, 51, to January 24, A. D. 52.
The date of the 25th acclamation has not been found, " so that
really the end of 51 is the earliest probable date for the 26th
acclamation." 2 So, then, the Delphi inscription with the
26th acclamation, while Gallio was proconsul, falls between
the end of A. D. 51 and August 1, A. D. 52. The proconsul
usually entered upon his office July 1. Gallio, then, began his
office either July 1, A. D. 51, or July 1, A. D. 52. The latter
date, though possible, would put less than a month between
the 26th and the 27th acclamations. Paul had been a year
and six months in Corinth before Gallio came (Acts 18:1).
He did not stay long thereafter. Gallio was probably procon
sul July 1, A. D. 51, to July 1, A. D. 52. If the Jews brought
Paul before Gallio soon after he came into office, Paul probably
left Corinth in the late summer or early autumn of A. D. 51.
He came to Corinth in the early months of A. D. 50, which
date agrees with the previous date already arrived at in this
chapter. While in Corinth, during A. D. 50-51, Paul wrote the
two Epistles to the Church in Thessalonica.

All things considered, the Delphi inscription gives us the
one certain date in Paul s ministry and in the Book of Acts.
All other dates must now be made to conform to the new light
here turned upon the chronology of the Acts and of Paul s
Epistles. The first mission tour (A. D. 46 and 47, or 47 and
48) follows the famine and visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jeru
salem (A. D. 45-46). The Jerusalem conference could come
also in A. D. 48 and the new tour begin in A. D. 48, with the
arrival in Corinth, A. D. 50. All dates in Acts and Paul s
Epistles have to be on a sliding scale. M. Jones 3 has made a
fine survey of A New Chronology of the Life of St. Paul, by
Plooij, 4 a Dutch scholar, who has gone over the whole ground
afresh. But we strike terra firma in the Delphi inscription.

8. The Coming of Festus.Luke says (Acts 24:27): "But

1 Ibid., p. 255. 2 Lake, Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Ch.

8 The Expositor, May, June and August, 1910.
4 De Chronologie van het leven van Paulus.

CHRONOLOGY IN THE LUKAN WRITINGS 177

when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius
Festus." Here again we come upon a note of time in touch
with the Roman world, but unfortunately the date is pecu
liarly uncertain. Lightfoot picked out the death of Herod
Agrippa I in A. D. 44 (45 for Paul s second visit) and the
voyage of Paul and Luke to Rome in A. D. 60 as the foci for
fixing Paul s career. "We have thus ascertained two fixed
dates in the chronology of St. Paul s life A. D. 45 for his
second journey to Jerusalem and A. D. 60 for his voyage to
Rome. The former of these being an isolated event in St.
Luke s narrative is of little value comparatively for our pur
pose; but from the latter the whole of the known chronology of
St. Paul s life is determined, by means of the notices in the
Acts of the sequence of events and the time occupied by them,
together with occasional allusions in the Epistles." 1 But,
unfortunately, the date of the coming of Festus is by no means
clear. Lightfoot argued that Paul on his arrival at Rome was
turned over "to the prefect of the prsetorium" 2 according to
the reading of some manuscripts for Acts 28 : 16, and so it was
while Burrhus was in office. He died in 62, and 61 would be
a good date. But Ramsay 3 shows that this officer was most
likely the Princeps Peregrinorum, and the argument about
Burrhus is beside the point. Eusebius places the coming of
Festus in place of Felix in the last year of Claudius, A. D. 54,
but if Eusebius is right Luke is wrong, for we cannot add two
years in Caesarea and time for other events from Corinth
(A. D. 51) to Antioch, the three years in Ephesus, and the
trip to Macedonia and to Corinth and then to Jerusalem, and
then two years in Csesarea under Felix, all by A. D. 54. The
thing cannot be done. We have stuck a peg in Corinth when
Gallio came in A. D. 51. Who is right here, Eusebius or
Luke? Ramsay 4 confesses that his prejudices were all in
favor of Eusebius, and he was not willing to admit that he had
" committed an inexplicable blunder." But Erbes 5 gave Ram
say 6 the clew to the mistake of Eusebius. Eusebius overlooked

1 "The Chronology of St. Paul s Life and Epistles" (Biblical Essays,
pp. 220 f.).

2 T$ crpaToxeSdcpxT}. 3 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 347.
4 "The Pauline Chronology" (Pauline and Other Studies, p. 349).
B "Todestage Pauli und Petri" (Gebhardt and Harnack s Texte und

Untersuch., XIV, 1).
6 Pauline and Other Studies, p. 350.

178 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

the interregnum between Herod Agrippa I, who died in A. D. 44,
and Herod Agrippa II, who began to reign A. D. 50, not A. D.
45. So the tenth year of his reign when Festus came was
A. D. 59. This comes very close to the date of Lightfoot,
who made A. D. 60 as the date of the recall of Felix and the
coming of Festus. We may, therefore, accept A. D. 59 as the
time when Festus came to Csesarea. Ramsay 1 even thinks
that Acts 20 : 5 ff. shows that Paul celebrated Passover in
Philippi Thursday, April 7, A. D. 57. At any rate, that is in
accord with the other dates shown to be probable. Jones 2
agrees that "Felix was relieved by his successor Festus, some
time in the summer of 59." The two years of Paul s imprison
ment in Csesarea, therefore, were the summer of A. D. 57 to
summer of A. D. 59. Zenos 3 still argues for A. D. 60 for the
coming of Festus, but A. D. 59 has the best of it at the pres
ent. Luke comes out with flying colors in these various chron
ological tests in every instance save that of Theudas. In that
instance, for the present, we must suspend judgment.

Harnack 4 gives an interesting summary of the chronological
data in the Acts, where occur statements of years, months,
days, feasts and indefinite dates. They make a considerable
list. Harnack notes that nowhere in Acts does Luke give a
scientific dating of any event, as in Luke 3:1. That is true,
but, as we have seen, he frequently connects his narrative with
the stream of history in his time, so that we are now able to
draw a reasonably accurate and clear outline for the chronol
ogy of the whole of Acts. Ramsay 5 says that "Luke was
deficient in the sense for time; and hence his chronology is
bad." That is only true so far as making definite dates and
keeping the relative proportion of dates. He is far better in
this than most of the ancients, who did not have our concern
for outstanding dates.

1 Pauline Studies, p. 352.

2 " A New Chronology of the Life of St. Paul " (The Expositor, August,
1919, p. 117).

3 Article "Dates" in Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Church.

4 Acts of the Apostles, pp. 6-30.
6 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 18.

CHAPTER XIV

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL DATA IN THE ACTS

"And the lictors reported these words unto the praetors" (Acts
16:38).

1. The Test of Historical Geography. The historian, if he is
not a mere rhetorician and word-painter, must call names and
titles and places as well as dates. We have seen how Luke
fares under the test of modern scholarship in the matter of
chronology. It remains to examine his treatment of points of
archaeological and geographical interest. If Josephus crosses
Luke s path in historical details, Strabo in his geography trav
erses much of the same ground that Luke traces in the Acts.
But both Strabo and Xenophon tell much less than Luke
does concerning certain parts of Asia Minor through which
Paul journeyed. When Ramsay 1 began his researches for the
reconstruction of the history and geography of Asia Minor, he
was confronted with the fact that "if Luke s narrative was
trustworthy, it was for me exceptionally valuable, as giving
evidence on a larger scale. There was nothing else like it.
No other ancient traveller has left an account of the journeys
which he made across Asia Minor; and if the narrative of
Paul s travels rests on first-class authority, it placed in my
hands a document of unique and exceptional value to guide
my investigations." 2 With this idea in mind Ramsay set to
work to test Luke s record in Acts from the standpoint of a
modern archaeological expert. Ramsay had made Asia Minor
under Roman rule his peculiar province, and by years of travel
and research on the ground had gained a mass of fresh knowl
edge possessed by no other living scholar. He endeavored to
treat Luke as he would Strabo or Xenophon: 3 "This prepos
session, that Christian authors lie outside the pale of real
literature and that early Christians were not to be estimated
as men, has been the enemy for me to attack ever since I began

1 See his Historical Geography of Asia Minor.

2 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 81. Ibid., p. 83.

179

180 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

to look into the Christian authors with unprejudiced eyes."
As an instance of how men allow prejudice to shut their eyes
to the truth, Ramsay 1 notes that in Acts 21 : 15 Luke says
that "a large party of travellers used horses, a statement inter
preted and confirmed by Chrysostom," though, he adds, "it
has seemed almost sacrilegious to some modern scholars to
suggest that Paul even made a journey except on foot." Ram
say 2 has found about the New Testament writers that "in
becoming Christians those writers did not cease to be men:
they only gained that element of thoroughness, of sincerity
and enthusiasm, the want of which is so unpleasing in later
classical literature."

Luke has stood the test with wonderful success. Moffatt 3
speaks of "Luke s remarkable degree of accuracy in geographi
cal, political, and social data," though he insists that "he must
be judged by the canons of his age, and in the light of his
opportunities." Lightfoot, 4 Vigoroux 5 and Ramsay 6 have all
borne testimony to the value of Luke in these respects. Head-
lam 7 observes that " a great test of the accuracy of the writer
in the last twelve chapters is given by the evidence from arche
ology." The opportunity for pitfalls is here very great. Har-
nack 8 devotes a whole chapter to "Lands, Nations, Cities, and
Houses" in the Acts. One of Ramsay s most helpful volumes
is his Cities of St. Paul. The inscriptions have been found of
great value in their sidelights on Luke s story. One of the
most modern ideas is to note the influence of geography upon
the life of a people, as in Palestine, Egypt, Greece and Asia
Minor. We see it to-day in America and in Europe. The
point of it all is that Luke was in the atmosphere of the first
century himself, else he could not have stepped so securely
in the mass and maze of shifting political scenes.
2. Roman Provinces. Luke wrote of the Roman world and
in the Roman world, but "Luke is throughout his work a
Greek, never a Roman," and " speaks of things Roman as they

1 Ibid. 2 Church in the Roman Empire, p. 176.

3 Introduction to the Lit. of N. T., p. 304.

4 Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 291-305.

6 Le nouveau Testament, 1889, et les decouvertes archceologigues modernes,
1896.

6 Church in the Roman Empire, chaps. II-VIII.

7 Hastings s D. B. ("Acts").

8 The Acts of the Apostles, chap. II.

ARCHEOLOGY IN THE ACTS 181

appeared to a Greek." 1 He may have been a Roman citizen,
but his outlook was that of a Greek. "To Luke the great
antithesis Gentile and Jew quite obliterated the lesser dis
tinction between Roman citizen and Roman provincial, when
the provincial was a Greek." 2 Luke "regularly uses the pop
ular phraseology, and not the strictly and technically accurate
terms for Roman things," but all the same "he is never guilty
of the blunders that puzzle the epigraphist in Asian or Gala-
tian inscriptions." All the more surprising, therefore, is the
minute accuracy of Luke in the matter of the Roman prov
inces. In the Roman Empire there were provinces and vassal
kingdoms. There were constant changes, as can be seen in
Palestine, which was a vassal kingdom under Herod the Great.
On his death, B. C. 4, it was divided into several tetrarchies
(Luke 3:1) or petty provinces (Herod Antipas, tetrarch of
Galilee and Samaria; Herod Philip, tetrarch of Iturea and
Trachonitis; and Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea and Samaria,
with hopes of a kingship). But Archelaus lost his rule in
A. D. 6, and a Roman procurator (cf. Pontius Pilate) ruled
over the secondary province of Judea (and Samaria). But
from A. D. 41-44 Herod Agrippa I was king of all Palestine,
when Roman procurators come back, with headquarters in
Csesarea, like Felix and Festus, termed "the governor" by
Luke (Acts 24:1, 27). The temporary reign of Herod
Agrippa I over Judea explains how he was able to compass
the death of James the brother of John (Acts 12 : 1 f.) and to
put Peter in prison (12 : 3 ff.). He clearly deserved the fate
that befell him (12 : 20-23). Judea was rather a sort of client-
state than a full province. It was under the supervision of
the province of Syria and Cilicia and Phoenicia. The imperial
provinces embraced about three-fourths of the empire. The
proprsetors held office indefinitely while proconsuls were chosen
annually.

Maclean observes that it is a good test of accuracy in a
writer in the first century A. D. to examine whether he names
the Roman governors rightly. There were two kinds of prov
inces in the empire: the senatorial and the imperial. The
senatorial provinces were under the control of the senate, and
the governor was called proconsul. 3 The emperor governed

1 Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethkhem ?, p. 52.

2 Ibid., p. 53. s Av6uTOXTO&lt;;.

182 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

the imperial provinces and the governor was termed proprae
tor. 1 Luke mentions six senatorial provinces: Achaia (Acts
18:12; 19:21, etc.), Asia (2:9; 19:10,26, etc.), Crete and
Cyrene (2:10,11; 27:7, 21, etc.), Cyprus (4:36; 13:4, 8,
etc.), Bithynia and Pontus (2:9; 16:7, etc.), Macedonia
(16 : 10, 11, etc.). So Luke rightly calls Gallio proconsul in
Acts 18 : 12. Achaia had been joined to Macedonia and made
imperial in A. D. 15, but in A. D. 44 it was again senatorial.
So Luke is right. It was once claimed that Luke blundered
in calling Sergius Paulus "proconsul" (Acts 13:8, 12) instead
of "propraetor," on the ground that Cyprus was an imperial
province. So it was once, but at this time it was a senatorial
province, though soon afterward imperial again. But General
Cesnola 2 has discovered an inscription on the north coast of
Cyprus which is dated "in the proconsulship of Paulus,"
clearly the Sergius Paulus of Acts 13 : 8, 12. Ramsay 3 makes
this year A. D. 47. Once more Luke is vindicated by the
rocks.

The six imperial provinces mentioned by Luke are Cappa-
docia (Acts 2:9), Cilicia and Syria and Phoenicia (Acts 15 : 41,
etc.), Egypt with title of prefect for governor (2 : 10), Galatia
on the south Galatian theory (16:6; 18:23), Lycia (27:5),
Pamphylia (2 : 10; 13 : 13; 27 : 5, etc.). There is, besides, the
subordinate province of Judea, with its procurator subject to
the propraetor in Syria.

There was constant interchange of provinces between the
emperor and the senate, but Luke ploughs his way safely
enough.

3. Ethnographic Terminology. The Romans did not destroy
the life of the peoples whom they conquered. They let the
various nations keep up their customs and languages. In a
broad and general way they allowed many religions to be
observed, though all had to be licensed (religio licitd) and
legalized. The prevalence of the emperor-cult led to severe
persecution of Christianity when it came to be differentiated
from Judaism. But the Roman provinces and kingdoms were
administrative for convenience and efficiency. They were not
drawn upon national and racial lines. But the old lines of

1 See Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire.
2 Cf. Hogarth, Devia Cypria, p. 114.
3 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 157,

ARCHEOLOGY IN THE ACTS 183

race and national cleavage remained. The old languages con
tinued to be spoken along with the current Greek (the Koine)
and the official Latin. Thus Paul addressed the people of
Lystra in Greek, as usual, but the multitude spoke "in the
speech of Lycaonia" (Acts 14 : 11). Ramsay 1 thinks that "the
issue of events showed that the Empire had made a mistake in
disregarding so completely the existing lines of demarcation
between tribes and races in making its new political provinces.
For a time it succeeded in establishing them, while the energy
of the Empire was still fresh, and its forward movement con
tinuous and steady. But the differences of tribal and national
character were too great to be completely set aside; they
revived while the energy of the Empire decayed during the
second century." But in the first century the Roman system
was at its height.

The popular terminology, however, survived all the while.
There are abundant evidences of it in Acts, instances where
Luke uses popular names for countries rather than official
names of provinces. Thus we find Pisidia (Acts 13 : 14),
Lycaonia (14 : 6, 11, etc.), Phrygia (16 : 6; 18 : 23) and Galatia
(16 : 6; 18 : 23), if north Galatia is meant. Ramsay 2 points
out how in southern Galatia (the southern part of the Roman
province of Galatia), distinct Regiones* existed like Phrygia,
Pisidia, Lycaonia (as distinct from Lycaonia Antiochiana which
was ruled by King Antiochus). Ramsay insists on the accu
racy of Luke in the description of these various regions. In
any case he preserves the old ethnographic names. Ramsay 4
argues that Iconium was not a part of Lycaonia, like Lystra
and Derbe, though in the province of Galatia. We are not
yet able to trace every detail in Roman provincial history and
administration, but Luke is wholly in accord with all known
facts in his use of names for the various divisions of Asia
Minor in the first century. He sharply distinguishes Antioch
in Pisidia from Antioch in Syria.

4. Colonies. Philippi alone is termed a colony 5 by Luke
(Acts 16 : 12), though various other cities are mentioned that
were colonies at the time of the events narrated by Luke, 6

1 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 136. 2 Ibid., p. 104.

3 xwpat. Cities of St. Paul, pp. 350 ff.

6 xaXwvfoc, Latin colonia.

6 Cf. Souter, "Colony," Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Church.

184 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

such as Corinth (since 27 B. C.), Lystra (since 12 B. C.),
Pisidian Antioch (since before 27 B. C.), Ptolemais (since
before A. D. 47), Puteoli (since 194 B. C.)&gt; Syracuse (since
21 B. C.), Troas (since about 20 B. C.), eight with Philippi.
It is possible that Luke mentions the fact that Philippi was a
colony because of his long residence there and his natural
interest and pride in the city. It used to be said that Luke
had blundered badly in applying the word "district" 1 to a
division of a province like Macedonia at this tune. The
Romans had divided the province into four districts B. C. 167.
But an ancient Macedonian coin uses the word in this sense. 2
At this time Amphipolis claimed the title of first city of the
district in which Philippi was. But Philippi had its own pride
in the matter and would not yield the title to its rival city.
Lightfoot (in loco) suggests that by "first city of the district"
Luke merely means geographical location, not importance.
But Luke gives the touch of life to his narrative by this detail.

The Roman colonies were small editions of Rome itself.
Normally some three hundred Romans went out to establish
the colony. These men remained Roman citizens, "a portion
of Rome itself planted amidst a community not itself possessed
of Roman citizenship" (Souter). These cities were advance-
guards of the mother city. They were military outposts to
hold in subjection the surrounding country. The various col
onies were connected by military roads with each other and
with Rome itself. At first the men were citizen-soldiers, but
in time of peace the military aspect was not so prominent.
" It was an honor for a provincial city to be made into a colonia,
because this was proof that it was of special importance, spe
cially dear to the Emperor, and worthy to be the residence of
Roman citizens, who were the aristocracy of the provincial
towns in which they lived" (Souter). The Greeks knew how
to colonize with skill. The Romans followed a different plan,
but with success. The British have learned how to plant
colonies and to give them freedom that stood the strain of the
World War.

There were other cities that had special privileges. These
free cities, as they were called, had self-government within the
Roman province -where they were. Luke mentions Athens,
Ephesus, Thessalonica and Tarsus. The Romans did not
2 Cf . Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 158.

ARCILEOLOGY IN THE ACTS 185

give a provincial constitution to a country without a certain
amount of civilization. The free cities and the colonies were
points of power. Paul went to the colonies and to the free
cities as centres of influence. The colonies held themselves
above the other cities.

5. Roman Citizenship. One could be a citizen of a free city
like Tarsus and not be a Roman citizen. Paul was proud of
his native city and had a right to be: "I am a Jew, of Tarsus
in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city" (Acts 21 : 39). Ramsay 1
has shown what it meant to Paul to live as a boy in this great
educational centre, this Greek city in the Orient. Those who
were not bom Roman citizens could acquire it by purchasers
Claudius Lysias did (Acts 22 : 28), sometimes through infamous
court favorites. Roman citizenship was sometimes bestowed
as a reward for services to the state, as may have been the case
with Paul s father or grandfather, according to Maclean s
conjecture. 2 Proud as Paul was of being a citizen of Tarsus,
he was much more so of his Roman citizenship. With simple
dignity he said to Claudius Lysias: "But I am a Roman born"
(Acts 22 : 28). Luke takes careful note of Paul s pride in and
use of his Roman citizenship. Souter 3 observes that the an
cient Greeks and Romans had a higher conception of citizen
ship than we have to-day: "To the ancient member of a polls
or civitas citizenship was life and life was citizenship." When
Paul spoke to the Sanhedrin in Acts 23 : 1, "Brethren, I have
lived before God in all good conscience until this day," he used
the word to live as a citizen. 4 Paul made use of his rights as
a Roman citizen to carry on his work of evangelization. "It
was no doubt this citizenship which gave Paul such an advan
tage as the Apostle of the Gentiles, and which inspired him
with the great plan of utilizing the civilization of the Roman
state to spread the gospel along the lines of communication." 5

It has been objected that Paul did not take advantage of
his citizenship in time to prevent the scourging in Philippi
without a fair trial. But it is doubtful if the magistrates
allowed Paul to say aught in reply to the claptrap of the mas
ter of the girl whom Paul had freed (Acts 16 : 21-23). It looks

1 Cities of St. Paul, part II.

2 One Vol. Hastings s D. B. (" Paul ").

3 Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Church ("Citizenship").

4 ireicoMceuncK. 6 Maclean, ibid.

186 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

as if the mob made such a clamor that Paul had no chance to
defend himself. But next morning, when the magistrates
sent word for Paul and Silas to be released, Paul had his oppor
tunity: "They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men
that are Romans, and have cast us into prison; and do they
now cast us out privily? Nay verily; but let them come them
selves and bring us out" (16 : 37). His words had the desired
effect, for the magistrates "feared when they heard that they
were Romans." Silas was evidently a Roman citizen also.
In Philippi Roman citizenship was properly appreciated and
Paul won his freedom and an apology. The rights of Roman
citizenship included exemption from degrading punishment,
like scourging and crucifixion, the right to a fair trial, the right
of appeal to the Emperor for sentence after trial and in the
case of capital offense the right of appeal to Caesar before trial.
Paul was wholly within his rights, therefore, when he grew
weary of the insincerity of Festus after the long delays of
Felix and said: "I appeal to Caesar" (25: 11). Festus recog
nized Paul s right in the matter (25 : 12), though he felt embar
rassed by the lack of definite charges against Paul (25 : 27).
There was grim humor in Agrippa s conclusion: "This man
might have been set at liberty if he had not appealed unto
Caesar" (26 : 32). He could have been set at liberty any time
for more than two years if Felix and Festus had really wished
to do what they knew was right in the case.

Paul was a citizen of heaven as well as of Tarsus and of
Rome. He employs the word for the Christian life: "Only let
your manner of life 1 be worthy of the gospel of Christ" (Phil.
1 : 27). In Phil. 3 : 20 2 Paul says: "For our citizenship is in
heaven" (Moffatt has it: "For we are a colony of heaven").

Luke was a Greek and may himself have been a Roman
citizen. At any rate, he alone employs the word "citizen" 3
in the Gospel: "He went and joined himself to one of the citi
zens of that country" (Luke 15: 15); "But his citizens hated
him" (19:14).

6. Local Color. There are many touches of local color in
Luke s writings, particularly the Acts, that are of great inter
est. In some of these cases difficulties once existed that dis-

See my book on The New Citizenship.
2 In P. Held. 6 (4 A. D.) we find: T^JV jcoXtTe(a[v o]ou evv o6pavq&gt;.

ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE ACTS 187

coveries have removed. In Acts 7 : 16 Luke quotes Stephen
as saying that Abraham bought the burial-place in Shechem.
According to Gen. 23 : 16 Abraham purchased the cave of
Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite in Hebron. Jacob bought
a field of the sons of Hamor in Shechem (Gen. 33 : 19; Joshua
24:32). There were two purchases and Knowling (in loco)
suggests that, since Shechem was the earliest settlement of
Abraham, and he set up an altar there, he probably bought a
piece of land there also. But even so Jacob was buried in the
cave of Machpelah according to Gen. 1 : 13, while Joseph was
buried in Shechem (Joshua 24 : 32). There were two burials,
also. Jerome says that the tombs of the Patriarchs were
shown at Shechem. It must be admitted that no clear solu
tion of this matter has yet been found. If it is an error, it
may belong to Stephen or to Luke. Moffatt 1 observes that
Luke was not as much at home in the topography of Palestine
as of Asia Minor.

In Pisidian Antioch Luke speaks of "the first men of the
city" as a title. These were the Duumviri and the "First
Ten." Greek cities in the East had a board of magistrates
with this title. Luke uses the correct title for these officers,
as he does in Acts 28 : 7, where he calls Publius " the First
Man" of the island of Malta. A Latin inscription and a
Greek inscription both apply the same title to two officers of
Malta. Knowling (in loco) and Ramsay 2 argue that it is not
a mere honorary appellation, but a technical official title in
the island.

In Acts 14 : 8-18 Luke gives a vivid picture of heathen
superstition in Lystra and of their notion that Barnabas and
Paul were Jupiter and Mercury (Zeus and Hermes). Ovid
has a story of the visit of these two gods to two Phrygian
peasants, Baucis and Philemon. The Greeks looked on
strangers as possible gods in human form. A coin of Lystra
has a picture of a priest leading two oxen to sacrifice just as
they were proceeding to offer them for Paul and Barnabas.
The whole story is true to life as we now know it was lived in
Lystra. Ramsay 3 says that excavation at Lystra is greatly
needed and probably more discoveries will be made here.

In Philippi Luke (Acts 16:20) mentions both "praetors" 4

1 Intr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 305. 2 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 343.

3 Cities of St. Paul, p. 413 *

188 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

and "lictors," 1 the correct technical titles in a colony and as
sumed by the magistrates in Philippi.

In Thessalonica, however, Luke (Acts 17 : 6) notes a curious
official title found nowhere else. The rulers of the city are
called politarchs. 2 No classical author employs this word for
the magistrates of any city. Critics once scoffed at Luke for
his carelessness and ignorance here. But now seventeen in
scriptions have been found that use the title, thirteen of them
in Macedonia and five in Thessalonica. 3 One of the inscrip
tions spans an arch in Thessalonica and has the title politarch
with the names of some of Paul s converts there (Sosipater,
Gaius, Secundus). There were usually five or six politarchs
at a time in Thessalonica.

In Athens Luke not only knows the Areopagus (Acts 17 : 34)
but he reproduces the local color with such skill that it is
charged that he composed Paul s address in the classical at
mosphere of the Parthenon. Stoics and Epicureans and the
Athenian curiosity and ennui are drawn to the life.

In Ephesus the worship of the temple of Diana is pictured
(Acts 19 : 34) with the graphic portrayal of Demetrius and his
labor-union (craftsmen), who are ready to do his bidding when
self-interest was aroused. The Asiarchs 4 and the town clerk 5
and the assembly 6 all belong to Ephesus. The Asiarchs super
intended the worship of the Emperor in cities where there was
a temple of Rome for the emperor-cult. "Their friendliness
to St. Paul is a sure sign of an early date, for the book could
only have been written while the Imperial policy was still
neutral to Christianity." 7 Proconsul in 19 : 38 is the correct
title for this senatorial province of Asia. Only one ruled at a
time, however.

It is not too much to say that Luke has come out mag
nificently as the result of archaeological research. Ramsay s
researches have proven that Luke in Acts reflects the nomen
clature and the geography of the first century A. D. The dis-

3 See Burton, American Journal of Theology, July, 1898, pp. 59S-632.

4 Aac&pxac. See Ramsay s article in Hastings s D. B. for copious data
and bibliography.

6 YP&lt;wTe6&lt;;. See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the N. T., for
numerous quotations from the papyri illustrating this and other uses of

6 exxXTjafa 7 Maclean, One Vol. Hastings s D. B.

ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE ACTS 189

coveries have vindicated him at every turn. Percy Gardner 1
rather condescendingly admits that Luke "shows, it is true, a
good deal of local and geographic knowledge, to which Sir
W. M. Ramsay has rightly called attention." In a footnote 2
he adds: "Of course, if a writer is at sea in his geographic and
local facts, it is a proof of his general untrustworthiness."
Quite so. But that is not the case with Luke. It is true that
Harnack 3 wrote: "St. Luke is an author whose writings read
smoothly, but one has only to look somewhat more closely to
discover that there is scarcely another writer in the New Tes
tament who is so careless an historian as he." That is a care
less criticism that Harnack has not made good in his books
on the Lukan writings. The facts in this chapter favor the
view of Ramsay rather than that of Harnack. Ramsay rightly
criticises Harnack for too much verbal quibbling over Luke s
sources and for not enough knowledge of the actual environ
ment in Asia Minor and in Europe. Ramsay has appealed to
the inscriptions from the critics. The rocks in every instance
have taken the side of Luke.

1 Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 391. * Ibid.

3 Luke the Physician, p. 112.

CHAPTER XV

LUKE S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW
"An orator, one Tertullus" (Acts 24 : 1)

Christianity had to find its place under Roman law. Luke
seems well aware of this problem. 1

1. Various Kinds of Law in the Roman Empire. Luke was
not a lawyer, but he lived under Roman rule, and Roman law
shows its hand toward Christianity in the Acts. "The student
of Christian origins cannot neglect the influence which the law
of the Roman Empire had on the infant Church." 2 Two law
yers are mentioned by name in the New Testament, one a pro
fessional Roman pleader and probably a heathen, Tertullus
(Acts 24 : 1), the other a Christian worker, "Zenos the lawyer"
(Titus 3 : 13). One must not confuse these Roman lawyers
with the lawyers (or scribes) and doctors of the law in the
Gospels. The Jewish lawyer was also a theologian, a doctor
of canon and civil law (LL.D.). They were ecclesiastical law
yers and preachers or teachers.

So in the New Testament we see the reflection of Jewish,
Greek and Roman law. And Greek law varied in different
cities under local influences. Roman law appears in its pro
vincial aspects as well as in its imperial forms. Roman judi
cial procedure had a long historical development, and was
finally codified (Justinian s Code) and lies at the basis of mod
ern jurisprudence. But the Ten Commandments and the
Sermon on the Mount have played a powerful part in making
modern law more than mere technicalities. English common
law is rooted in human rights, and Christ s demand for right
eousness dominates the upright judge to-day. But in the

Plooij, of Leyden, has argued (The Expositor, December, 1914, and
February, 1917) that Luke wrote the Acts, specifically as an apology for
Paul and for Christianity before the Roman council. Plooij goes so far
as to call Luke juris studiosus. M. Jones replies to Plooij in The Expositor
for March, 1915, but Plooij has made a point that deserves consideration.

2 Maclean, Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Ch. ("Roman Law in the N, T.")-

190

LUKE S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 191

first century A. D. one met various kinds of law and Chris
tianity had to square itself with existing institutions. Paul
took his stand squarely on the side of law and order and urged
"subjection to the higher powers" (Romans 13 : 1) as in the
ory, at least, the agents of God for the preservation of order
and justice. He urged prayer for all rulers, "that we may
lead a quiet and tranquil life in all godliness and gravity" (I
Tim. 2:2).*

In the Greek cities of Asia Minor, which in many cases had
an excellent system of law already in force, the Romans re
spected the old law and customs and did not enforce Roman
legal procedure, just as they did not interfere with the Greek
language, "reserving Latin for state occasions" (Maclean).

So in Heb. 9 : 16 f . the will 2 seems to be of the Roman kind,
like ours, which is in effect only on the death of the testator.
We get our Old Testament and New Testament from the Latin
translation of the Greek word, which also means covenant, as
in Gal. 3 : 15, though here the Greek idea of will is possible.
The Greek will, once recorded, was irrevocable. With us, alas,
one never knows when a will is binding, once the lawyers get
hold of it. The best way to-day to give money is to give it
before one dies. A man can be his own administrator, as
Andrew Carnegie was. In Gal. 4 : 2 the father names the
date at which the child becomes of age, according to Greek
law. Roman law made the child stay under a tutor 3 (or
guardian) till fourteen, and under a curator 4 (or steward) till
twenty-five. Gal. 4 follows Roman law in respect of the
tutor and curator but Greek law in the matter of appointing
the term of their office. In Greek and Roman law the mas
ter s son by a slave was also slave, but free under Hebrew law.
So in Gal. 4 : 21-31 (Isaac and Ishmael) we see Greek and
Roman law interpreted in a way to appeal to the Galatians
who lived under it. So Luke writes in a world of complicated
legal processes.

1 See Ball, St. Paul and the Roman Law (1901); Buss, Roman Law and
History in the N. T. (1901); Hicks, Traces oj Greek Philosophy and Roman
Law in the N. T. (1896); Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire (1893).

2 Sca0ifjxTQ. Same word ^for will and covenant. Moulton and Milligan
(Vocabulary, p. 1480) say: "In papyri and inscrr. the word means testa
ment, will, with absolute unanimity and such frequency that illustration
is superfluous."

3 lictTpdrcouq (Gal. 4:2). ofxov6txou&lt;; (Gal. 4:2).

192 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

In Gal. 3 : 23-25 the picture of the law (Jewish law) as the
child-guardian or pedagogue 1 before the age of faith is after
the Greek, not the Roman idea of guardian. Ramsay 2 calls it
"that characteristic Greek institution" which the Galatians
considered "salutary and good." "Their duty was not to
teach any child under their charge, but simply to guard him." 3
The Roman pedagogue was not so highly esteemed, and had
no regard to the moral side of the child s life, though he also
accompanied the child to school, as did the Greek pedagogue.
The Roman failure with the education of the children, Ram
say thinks, led to the disintegration of the moral fibre and of
the national life. Luke, like Paul, wrote in a world where the
Graeco-Roman civilization flourished. He makes his way
safely.

2. Law in the Colonies. Here Latin was used in municipal
deeds and in trials, though Greek would usually be the language
of commerce and every-day life. There was no senate 4 in the
colonies, but councils (decuriones) 5 and Roman names for the
officers as magistrates 6 (praetor es) in Acts 16 : 20, 22, 35 f., and
Serjeants 7 (lictors) at Philippi. The business interests of
Philippi used Roman legal procedure against Paul. The forms
of Roman law are insisted upon by the masters of the poor
girl (16 : 21), while Paul pointedly shows the various items in
the Roman law that the magistrates or rulers (archons) (16 : 19)
had violated (16 : 37). Paul does not mean that it would have
been proper to flog them if they had been condemned. That
was simply another item in their mistreatment of Roman citi
zens. Luke has not misunderstood Roman law in his report
here. He aptly pictures the fear of the Roman magistrates
because of their cowardice before the business men and the
mob.

In Antioch of Pisidia, another colony, Paul left before he
faced the civil authorities, "the chief men of the city" 8 (Acts
13 : 50), the technical title for the city officials here. The Jews,
especially the rabbis, "were filled with jealousy" (13 : 45), and
"urged on the devout women of honorable estate" (13:50),
probably Gentile women of the aristocracy who had become

1 xatSa-ro)Y6?. z St. Paul s Epistle to the Galatians, p. 382.

3 Ibid., p. 383. 4 pouX^j.

6 Ramsay, Galatians, pp. 117, 182.

6 7 8 TO&?

LUKE S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 193

attendants at the synagogue, "God-fearers" like Cornelius in
Csesarea (Acts 10 : 1 f.). These women were open to the influ
ence of the rabbis and were able to reach the city officials.
The combination of religious jealousy, social prestige and
civil power was too great for Paul and Barnabas. Rackham 1
notes that the word "honorable" is common in the inscrip
tions at Antioch. The persecution here was effective, appar
ently without any legal process. The civil authorities were
reached by private influence without a public arraignment,
but the pressure was too great to resist. Public trial would
have come if Paul and Barnabas had remained. The rabbis
would have found some charge for the arrest and trial of the
preachers, who had become entirely too popular. Roman law
did not forbid this recourse to personal spleen. Modern in
quisitors have often followed suit as they gained the ear of the
men at the helm of city and state.

Lystra was another colony where Paul and Barnabas had
trouble at the hands of the set of jealous Jews who had so
successfully driven them out of Antioch and out of Iconium.
"But there came Jews thither from Antioch and Iconium"
(Acts 14:19). Paul and Barnabas had remained a "long
time" (14: 3) in Iconium (not yet a colony, not till Hadrian s
tune 2 ), till the Jews had stirred the Gentile multitude against
them and there came an actual "onset 3 both of the Gentiles
and the Jews with their rulers, to treat them shamefully and
to stone them" (14: 5). Paul and Barnabas fled just in time
to escape a lynching at the hands of a mob led by "the rulers"
(archons) of the city. But in Lystra the Jews waited till Paul
and Barnabas had become the heroes of the hour by reason
of healing the crippled man. They had with difficulty dis
suaded the populace in Lystra from offering sacrifice to them
as Jupiter and Mercury (14 : 8-18). And now the fickle crowd,
like a pack of wolves, led by the same jealous rabbis, turned
on Paul and stoned him and dragged him out of the city, sup
posing that he was dead (14:19). This time they thought
that they had put the pestilent preacher out of their way for
good and all. Their wrath had grown from Antioch to Ico
nium and now to Lystra. Here it was a real lynching party
and not a near one, as in Iconium. The city officials do not

1 Acts, p. 222. 2 Ramsay, Galatians, pp. 123, 218.

3 ip[A7j, a "rush" like a modern football team.

194 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

here appear in the matter at all. There was no legal process.
The Jews made their appeal directly to the mob and trusted
to the connivance of the city authorities whom they had
reached by private appeal in Antioch and by public demon
stration in Iconium. They were apparently safe in their judg
ment. If one wonders how a lynching like this could have
taken place in a Roman colony under Roman law, let him
recall recent occurrences in the United States, not alone in the
South, where race prejudice has long existed, but in Washing
ton, in Chicago, in Omaha, in East St. Louis, in Springfield,
Ohio, and in Springfield, Illinois, the home of Abraham Lin
coln. The appeal to the mob is anarchy and Bolshevism. It
is always possible, even in enlightened communities, but it
never settles anything. It always inflames men s passions
and whets the appetite for blood. Paul himself knew only
too well what it was to arouse popular prejudice against the,
followers of Christ. Now a small circle of the faithful, prob
ably Timothy among them, gathered round his dead body, as
they thought, when he rose up to their joy (14 : 20), but he
did not tarry long in Lystra. He knew when to leave.

At Corinth, another colony, Paul was arraigned by the
jealous rabbis again after Crispus, a ruler of the synagogue,
had gone over to Paul s side (18:8). The present ruler of
the synagogue, Sosthenes, took advantage of the arrival of a
new proconsul, Gallic, to bring Paul into court for violating
Roman law: "This man persuades men to worship God con
trary to law" (18 : 13). The Roman law was strict about the
introduction of new religions, strict when the Romans cared
to be. Judaism was a legalized religion (religio licita), hoary
with age and allowed by Roman law, though the Romans, like
all Gentiles, despised the Jews. Mithraism and Isisism were
new religions and were winked at by Roman officials. Chris
tianity had no legal standing before Roman law. Technically
it was unlawful (religio illicita) save as it passed as a form or
sect of Judaism. Paul, as we know, claimed that Christianity
was the real Judaism of the prophets (Gal. 3; Romans 9-11):
"After the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of
our fathers" (Acts 24: 14). The Jews before Gallio mean for
him to understand that Paul has violated Roman law, but
their charges made it plain to him that Christianity which
Paul preached was really a form of Judaism and so not illegal.

LUKE S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 195

They failed to make a case against Paul in Gallio s interpreta
tion of Roman law. He ruled that the dispute was one be
tween Jews on questions of Jewish theology, and hence not a
case in Roman law at all. He would not allow Paul to speak,
but threw the case out of court with the famous words: "If
indeed it were a matter of wrong or of wicked villainy, O ye
Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: but if they
are questions about words and names and your own law, look
to it yourselves; I am not minded to be a judge of these mat
ters" (18:14f.). The decision was a boomerang. For the
moment, and in the province of Achaia, Christianity was
given a legal standing before Roman law as a religio licita and
as a form of Judaism. The rage of the Jews was tremendous.
They laid hold on their own leader, Sosthenes, and beat him
right before the judgment-seat, but "Gallic cared for none of
these things" (18:17). He had a blind eye for the poetic
justice that came to the jealous Sosthenes. Gallio was a
brother of Seneca and was apparently a man of intelligence
and with a sense of justice, a Roman official of the higher type,
quite other from the kind seen in Palestine in the cases of Pilate,
Felix and Festus. There were Roman governors like Gallio.
The administration of Roman law depended, after all, upon
the character of the officer, as, in truth, is true of all law ev
erywhere.

3. Law in the Free Cities. We have examples in the Acts of
legal processes in such free cities as Athens, Ephesus and
Thessalonica.

In Thessalonica there was probably a senate and an assem
bly. Certainly they had politarchs, "rulers of the city"
(Acts 17:6), as the inscriptions prove. In Thessalonica a
great multitude of the devout Greeks or God-fearers, who had
been attending the synagogue services, were converted by
Paul s preaching as well as a large number of the chief women
(17 : 4). Here Paul had a large body of aristocratic women on
his side, in contrast with the situation in Antioch in Pisidia,
where they were lined up against him. Here the jealous Jew
ish leaders make their first appeal to the rabble, "certain vile
fellows of the rabble" * (17 : 5), certain evil men of the crowd

1 T&V dyopafav ocvSpaq -rtvtig xovrjpo6&lt;;. Lake (Earlier Epistles of Paul, p.
69, n. 1) takes dtfopatav here to be "agitators" because of Plutarch, JEmil-
ius Paulus, 38, dtvOpwicou? &lt;ysvvst&lt;; xort SeSouXeuxdrat;, dc

196 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

in the market-place. The life of a Greek city centred in the
agora or market-place. Here the idlers were found very much
as professional jurors hang around the court-house in our
modern cities. Even some of the Thessalonian converts showed
a reluctance to work (II Thess. 3 : 10). So the Jewish rabbis
got the ear (probably for pay or by appeal to prejudice) of
these "bums," who were ready for any enterprise or excite
ment. They deliberately undertook to set the city in an up
roar. It was a mob made to order that clamored at the
door of Jason s house for Paul and Silas. So failing to find
them, they dragged Jason before the politarchs and accused
him of entertaining Paul and Silas, "these that have turned
the world upside down." 1 Certainly this was a tribute to
Paul and Silas, though, as a matter of fact, the rabbis and
their confederates from the agora had set the city by the ears.
Now the Jews appeal to Roman law, as the Sanhedrin posed
as friends of Caesar when Pilate weakened once more (John
19:12, 15): "And these all act contrary to the decrees of
Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus" (Acts
17:7). The Jews in Thessalonica, as the Jews before Pilate,
knew that Paul did not preach Jesus as a political king or
emperor 2 in opposition to Caesar, but they wished the politarchs
to think so. The crime of which they accuse Jason and Paul
and Silas is high treason, the very charge placed against Jesus
(Luke 23 : 2). The charge of treason "cast into a panic both
the politarchs and the crowd." 3 So Jason was compelled to
give security 4 for good behavior against treason (17 : 9), pay
ing money like a bond or bail. Thus the politarchs saved
their face in the presence of this charge of a revolution. It is
interesting to note that in writing to the Thessalonians Paul
describes the "man of sin," "the son of perdition, he that
opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or
that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God,
setting himself forth as God" (II Thess. 2 : 3 f.). "Remember

1 ol T^V ofxoutxsvrjv dtvacjTaT&cjavTe*;. Used in the papyri for driving one out
of hearth and home, B. G. U. 1179, 20 (A. D. 41). So of upsetting one, P.
Oxy., 119, 10 (A. D.2-3).

2 The word ^actXs6&lt;; was applied to the Emperor.

3 Rackham, in loco.

4 Xa^vreq T*&gt; bwtv6v. Cf . Mark 15 : 15. In P. Oxy., 294, 23 (A. D. 22), we
have Bo[0v]at elxav6v for "give security" till the inquiry or trial, a case pre
cisely in point.

LUKE S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 197

ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things ? "
(2:5). Evidently, Paul, while in Thessalonica, had been
stirred by the worship of the Roman Emperor and may have
employed language that gave some color to the specious charge
of his enemies. Here in Thessalonica Paul began to face the
inevitable conflict between Christ and Caesar. The shadow
of Rome was cast upon the Cross. So Paul and Silas were
"immediately" sent away by the brethren to Beroea (Acts
17 : 10). It was a serious moment for Paul. When in Bercea
the same Jews came to attack Paul, "then immediately the
brethren sent forth Paul to go as far as the sea" (17:14).
The haste in both instances suggests that Paul s zeal and ear
nestness against emperor-worship had made it inexpedient
for him to tarry.

In Athens Paul was not put on trial before the court of the
Areopagus. No criminal charge was laid against him at all.
After a round of public discussion with the Stoics and the
Epicureans in the agora at Athens, with ridicule from some
of the people (Acts 17 : 18), others more courteously proposed
that Paul go up unto the Areopagus and in a more formal
address expound his strange teaching (17:19f.). In Athens
there was always a crowd ready to hear some new thing. Paul
was in an embarrassing situation. Like Socrates of old, he
had crossed swords with the sophists of the new time. But
the crowd passed quick judgment on Paul as a mere babbler
or seed-picker 1 (17 : 18), like the birds that hopped about in
the market-place. They little knew that a greater than Soc
rates was here, one with an infinitely greater philosophy, the
wisdom of God. Socrates was tried and condemned for intro
ducing strange divinities. The same charge is made against
Paul. Three views exist as to what took place on the Areopa
gus. One is that Paul made a popular philosophical exposi
tion of Christianity to the crowd that invited him up there.
The conduct of the hearers lends some color to this view
(17 : 32-34). Another view is that a real trial before the
court of the Areopagus took place. Rackham argues ably
that Paul was arraigned before the court for introducing new
divinities as Socrates had been. He suggests that the exami
nation took place before the court of the Areopagus, but in the
Stoa Basilica, and that Paul took advantage of the occasion to

198 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

proclaim the gospel. There was one Areopagite (Dionysius)
present who was converted. But this view is not convincing.
Ramsay 1 is positive that Paul was brought before the council
of Areopagus, but not for trial. He thinks that the Stoics
wanted him examined by the council to see if he was entitled
to a permit to lecture in the university atmosphere. "Cer
tain powers were vested in the council of Areopagus to appoint
or invite lecturers at Athens, and to exercise some general
control over the lecturers in the interest of public order and
morality." 2 It is not certain that the hill of Mars is meant
by the Areopagus, which can mean simply the court of Are
opagus, whether held on Mars Hill or in the agora. In any
case it hardly seems likely that it was a court trial for a crime,
but a University court in which Paul made his defense as a
teacher. Ramsay 3 shows that the Areopagus is not always
topographical. Certainly, this is a plausible view, and on the
whole the most likely to be true. At any rate, in Athens
Paul is in a Greek atmosphere of freedom, and does not feel
the hand of Roman law or the jealousy of Jewish rabbis or the
hatred of business interests. The intellectuals of Athens soon
lose interest in the wild theories of the new and raw philoso
pher. They laugh him out of court and out of town.

But in Ephesus we see all the forms and processes of Grseco-
Roman law (proconsul, 4 town clerk, 5 assembly, 6 courts 7 ).
Ephesus had thus a Greek constitution besides the Roman
proconsul. The popular assembly met every three months
and oftener on occasion. The town-clerk was an important
official. The proconsul represented the supreme authority of
Rome. The Asiarchs (19 : 31), who were friendly to Paul and
would not allow him to face the mob in the amphitheatre, were
provincial officers who had charge, among other things, of the
provincial worship of the Emperor. "A temple and altar to
Rome and the emperor were erected in some city, which there
upon was designated Neocoros 8 or Sacristar (literally, temple-
sweeper), i. e., of the imperial temple." 9 Thessalonica and
Beroea were also "temple-sweepers." Ephesus was exeeed-

St. Paul the Traveller, p. 246.

2 Ibid. ft^ pp. 244 f.

4 dtvOuxato? (19 : 38). 5 YPwwrce6&lt;; (19 : 35).

STJIXO? (19: 33), IxxXrjofa (19 : 39). 7 dyopalot (19 : 38).

8 vewx6po? (19 : 35). 9 Rackham, Acts, p. 363.

LUKE S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 199

ingly proud of this honor as well as of the title of "temple-
sweeper" for the temple of Diana. Inscriptions show that
the name "temple-sweeper" was also used in reference to the
worship of Diana (Artemis), so that Luke is vindicated on this
point. "Great Artemis" was the usual title given this god
dess. Inscriptions call her "Great Artemis" and "Most Great
Goddess" (cf. "Most High God" in Acts 16:17, also in in
scriptions). One of the decrees at Ephesus speaks of the
decline of the worship of Artemis as Luke does. "Mr. Wood s
excavations of this temple and the numerous inscriptions there
discovered have given a revelation of this worship which
entirely corroborates the lifelike picture in the Acts." 1 It is
probable that the Asiarchs induced the town clerk to dismiss
the mob. We see here Grseco-Roman law invoked in defense
of Paul, as Gallio took his side in Corinth. In Antioch in
Pisidia the Jewish rabbis got the city officials to act on their
side against Paul. In Ephesus Paul had lived three years,
and so had won the friendship of the Asiarchs who befriended
him. Perhaps, also, Paul in Ephesus was more careful about
references to the emperor-worship than he had been in Thessa-
lonica. He seems here to have directed his energy more against
the worship of Diana than against the emperor-worship. At
any rate the Asiarchs were not charged with the worship of
Diana. The town clerk skilfully parried the charge of Deme
trius about Diana s proud magnificence and showed that Paul
and his friends were not temple-robbers 2 or blasphemers of the
goddess Diana (19:37). Demetrius had followed the line of
the masters in Philippi and had gone a step farther. He had
aroused the self-interest of the craftsmen (guild or labor-unions,
common enough at that time) by appeals to the peril to the
trade and so to their jobs (19 : 24-27). Capitalist and workmen
here unite against Paul. In public, however, the cry of peril
to Diana was raised (19 : 26 f.), and nothing was said about
the business interests hit by Paul s preaching. We see here a
close parallel to the modern struggle with the liquor trade.
The hatred of vested business interests was turned against
Paul and only the quick action of his powerful friends in office
saved him and his friends Gaius and Aristarchus. They would
have gotten Paul in time had he remained in Ephesus. So he
quickly left (Acts 20:1).
1 Rackham, Acts, p. 364, 2 lspoa6Xou&lt;;.

200 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

4. The Sanhedrin and Jewish Law. We have seen how Luke
pictures Paul in touch with Greek and Roman law. It remains
to see how he fares with Jewish law. Paul was certainly at
home before the Sanhedrin, whose agent he had been in the
persecution of Christianity (Acts 8 : 3; 9 : 1 f.; 22 : 4 f.^; 26 : 10 f.)
and of which he was possibly a member (26 : 10). The powers
of the Sanhedrin had been greatly limited since the days of
Herod the Great. Rome reserved the right of capital punish
ment (John 18 : 31) and the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction in
Galilee and Samaria, 1 yet local synagogues were allowed to
have a good deal of authority. 2 The stoning of Stephen
(Acts 7 : 58) was lynch-law, an illegal murder. Stoning was
the old Jewish penalty for blasphemy, but the Sanhedrin no
longer had that right. Stephen so enraged this body that
they took the law into their own hands, and the Roman proc
urator seems to have let it pass, if indeed he was in office at
this juncture. The persecution of other Christians by the
Sanhedrin (Acts 5:33; 22:4; 26:10) was either ^ ignored or
winked at by the Roman officials as a matter of slight impor
tance from the standpoint of Roman law and order. The
Sanhedrin could arrest persons and imprison them and flog
them (Acts 5 : 18, 40; 22 : 4; 26 : 10; II Cor. 11 : 24 f.). The
death of James in Acts 12 : 2 was by order of Herod Agrippa I
while he was King of Judea. And Peter would have fared the
same fate but for the interposition of God and Peter s flight
(12 : 3-17).

Stephen stirred up the Pharisees (6 : 11-14) as Peter had
aroused the Sadducees (4 : 1 f.; 5 : 17 f.). Paul carried on the
persecution of the disciples as a Pharisee, and Gamaliel, his
great teacher, no more interposed to stay his hand as he had
done once in behalf of the Apostles, to score a point against
the Sadducees (5 : 33-42). Paul, on his last visit to Jerusalem,
met the hatred of the Jewish mob as he had faced mobs of
Jews or Gentiles in Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Bercea, Cor
inth, Ephesus. The rage of the Jerusalem mob is due to
charges made by Jews of Asia, probably old enemies in Ephe
sus, who were angered by Paul s association with Trophimus,
a Greek Christian of Ephesus, in Jerusalem (21 : 27-31). The
mob mind is very much alike anywhere. The crowd-conscious
ness of these Jews is outside of the pale of law. It is the same

1 Maclean, Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Ch.

2 Biggs, St. Peter and Jude, p. 25.

LUKE S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 201

thirst for blood that Paul had once felt as a persecutor. It is
the Roman chief-captain who rescues Paul by the aid of sol
diers from death by the mob (21 : 33-36). The position of
Paul is now peculiar. He appears to Claudius Lysias as a
criminal of some sort. He first suspects him of being the
famous Egyptian leader of the band of "assassins" (21:38)
and is astonished that Paul speaks Greek. On learning that
Paul is a Jew of Tarsus he allows him to speak to the mob from
the steps of the tower of Antonia, which he does in Aramaic,
so that the chief-captain did not understand his address, but
saw only the wild confusion at the end (21 : 39-22 : 23). He
tried to ferret out the guilt of Paul by scourging only to find
that he was dealing with a Roman citizen and was in peril of
a crime himself (22 : 24-29) : "The chief-captain also was afraid
when he knew that he was a Roman, and that he had bound
him/

In his perplexity Claudius Lysias called a meeting of the
Sanhedrin 1 in order to see if that body could define Paul s guilt
to guide his course (22:30). Paul was at home before this
body of the fathers, but at once lost all chance of a fair inquiry
by the claim that he had lived in all good conscience up till
now, including his conversion to Christ. The upshot was the
claim by Paul that he was still a Pharisee on the subject of the
resurrection and this claim was followed by the violent cleav
age of the body who were about to tear Paul in pieces in the
effort to get at each other. Once more Claudius Lysias res
cued Paul from the Jewish court and he was still in the dark
about his prisoner (23 : 1-10).

The conspiracy against Paul and the wit of Paul s nephew
led the chief-captain to send Paul away from Jerusalem by
night under guard of a company of soldiers in order to get him
away from the forces of Jewish hate in Jerusalem. His letter
puts the best face on the matter for Claudius Lysias, and is
not in accord with the facts (23 : 26-30). So Paul has escaped
the toils set for him in Jerusalem, but he is still a prisoner in
Csesarea in Herod s palace. 2

1 Ramsay (" Trial Scenes in the Acts," Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 90)
is sure that this was not a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, but was a
hurried called meeting.

2 Or praetorium (xpatTwptov) . On the meaning of this word and other
legal and technical terms, see Ferguson, "The Legal Terms Common to
the Macedonian Inscriptions and the New Testament" (Historical and
Linguistic Studies of University of Chicago, vol. II).

202 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

5. Roman Law in Palestine. Paul has escaped the jaws of
death from the mob, the Sanhedrin and the conspirators in
Jerusalem. He now stands at the bar of the Roman proc
urator in Csesarea. Once before Paul had faced the Roman
governor, the proconsul Gallio, in Corinth. Then, as now, it
was the Jews who made accusations against him. Then he
was set free, with the result that Christianity was given a legal
standing in Achaia as a religio licita, a form of Judaism. That
was in a heathen city, where the Jews were disliked as they
were everywhere. "Beware of the Jews" 1 Serapim wrote to
Heraclides, who was in money difficulties A. D. 41. In Pales
tine, at least, Christianity is no longer regarded as a form of
Judaism by the Jews. Peter and John once worshipped in
the temple. Slowly the lines have been drawn. Paul s great
Gentile propaganda has stirred many of the Jewish Christians,
the Judaizers, against him. But the Roman government has
not yet assumed a hostile attitude toward Christianity. The
case of Paul really carries with it the future of Christianity in
the Roman Empire. It is for this reason that Luke devotes
so much space to the details of his imprisonment and trials in
Csesarea. Paul stands at the bar of Roman provincial jus
tice, but he is in Palestine, where the Roman governor feels
the full force of Jewish hate and Jewish power, as Pilate did
when he surrendered to the demand of the Sanhedrin. Luke
told that story with great power in the Gospel. What will
Felix now do with the case of Paul? Will he surrender him
to the Sanhedrin as Pilate did Jesus ?

Felix makes a fair start. He would wait for the accusers to
come (23:35). Ananias, the high priest, appeared with five
elders and a Roman lawyer or pleader (orator), Tertullus, who
argued the case against Paul after the accusations of Ananias
(24:1-9). It is a characteristic demagogical harangue with
flattery of Felix and denunciation of Paul. Paul pleads his
own case (24:10-21). He shows the falsity of the charge
about profaning the temple, the vagueness of that about caus
ing disturbances and admits that he is a member of the sect
of the Nazarenes, which he claims is in accord with the Jewish
hope. Luke adds a curious comment about Felix "having
more exact knowledge concerning the Way" (24:22). More
exact than what? The Way is Christianity. Felix is acute

1 B. G. U., 1079, 24 f., xcrt oft pXSice oatbv dcicb TG&gt;V

LUKE S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 203

enough to see that in reality Christianity is on trial for its legal
status in Palestine. He probably knew of the decision of
Gallio. At any rate, he knew enough to be unwilling to con
vict Paul and yet he feared the Jews too much to set him free.
So he put off the case, possibly influenced, also, by the men
tion of "alms" by Paul, as holding out hope of a bribe. At
any rate, that came to be a definite motive 1 with him (24 : 26)
after he recovered from the shock of Paul s powerful sermon
to him and to Drusilla (24 : 24 f.). But Felix dallied with the
case for two years, and left Paul a prisoner, when recalled, to
please the Jews (24 : 27). Felix makes a sorry spectacle of
Roman justice, but Luke s picture is in keeping with what is
known of him elsewhere.

The coming of Festus revived the hopes of the Jews, who at
once (cf. coming of Gallio to Corinth) undertook to induce
Festus to bring Paul from Csesarea, plotting again to kill him
on the way (25 : 1-5). But Festus was not so easily caught
and he also began well. He demanded that the accusers come
to Csesarea, where he held court. So they came again with
the same old charges, which Paul promptly denied. Now
Festus asked Paul if he were not willing to go up to Jerusalem
and be tried there before him (25 : 9) indeed, but probably
according to Jewish law. The procurators sometimes applied
Jewish law in such cases. It was a trap set for Paul for the
purpose of pleasing the Jews. Paul s patience was at last
exhausted. He knew what Jerusalem held in store for him.
He now knew that Festus was no better than Felix, and that
he lacked the courage to stand up against the Jews. He had
waited two years on Felix. There was but one hope left, and
that lay in the right of appeal to Caesar, which he could make
as a Roman citizen. This he did and at once took the case
out of the hands of Festus (25: 10-12). Luke has told this
story with great detail and vividness. He was probably pres
ent during these arraignments of Paul, though he may not
have remained in Csesarea all of the two years. Ramsay 2
thinks that Luke regarded Paul s trials in Csesarea and the
appeal to Caesar as a test case for Christianity. Hence he felt

1 Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 310) thinks that Paul came into his
patrimony about this time and was thus able to bear the expense of his
long lawsuit.

2 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 308.

204 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

justified in devoting so much space to it. He evidently com
pleted Acts when it was clear that Paul would be acquitted,
and hence a new day would dawn for Christianity in the
Roman Empire. Incidentally, this is an argument for dating
Acts before A. D. 64, when all of a sudden Nero turned against
Christianity. There is no hint of this outcome in the Acts.
"The importance of the trial for Luke is intelligible only if
Paul was acquitted," 1 and, one may add, Luke wrote in igno
rance of the reversal of Roman policy by Nero in A. D. 64.
Felix and Festus show the Roman governors at their worst.

The so-called trial of Paul before Herod Agrippa II was no
trial at all. The case was no longer in the hands of Festus.
It was really a sort of mock trial or entertainment arranged
by Festus to relieve the ennui of Agrippa and Bernice on their
visit to Festus, as Luke makes plain (25 : 13-27). It is evident
that Paul need not have spoken unless he cared to do so. No
charges were placed against Paul. Agrippa, as a fellow Jew,
was more likely to understand Paul and so he took advantage
of this opportunity to state his case and make an apology for
his whole life (26 : 1-23). The plea of Festus that he had no
charge against Paul to send to Caesar was doubtless true, nor
did he secure one on this occasion (26:24-32). Ramsay 2
notes how true Luke is to the facts in each case: "Legal pro
ceedings are taken against Paul and his friends in many places,
and accusations have to be made in each case, according to
the forms of Roman law. The accusation varies in each case;
it is nowhere the same as in any other city; yet it is everywhere
in accordance with Roman forms." Ramsay lucidly shows
how the accusers had to find some crime in Paul s conduct at
Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Jerusalem
and Csesarea, and how skilful they were in relating their
grudges to the Roman legal forms, as we have already shown.

The Acts closes with Paul still a prisoner in Rome, but with
a hope of release implied, as in Paul s Epistles to Philippians
and Philemon. But at the close of Acts the future attitude
of Rome to Christianity is problematical. It seems probable
that Paul was set free by Nero without a trial, the case going
by default. But the burning of Rome by Nero in A. D. 64
quickly 3 changed the whole atmosphere. He laid that crime

1 Ibid. 2 Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 97.

3 Probably by A. D. 65.

LUKE S KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN LAW 205

at the door of the Christians and began to treat them as crim
inals. There are echoes of this attitude in I Peter 4 : 16.

The Romans learned to distinguish between Christians and
Jews. The Jews drew the line against Christians. The
author of Hebrews (13 : 13) will urge the Christians to follow
Christ without the camp. The Christians had already had to
choose between Lord Caesar and Lord Jesus (cf. I Cor. 12 : 1-3).
When Trajan writes to Pliny it is unlawful to be a Christian
and the natural implication is that it had long been a crime to
be a Christian. Paul saw the fight coming between Christ
and Caesar for world conquest. Luke has drawn in Acts the
picture of the events that led up 1 to that conflict which lasted
for centuries, which in essence still rages. The Christian still
has to face the problem of loyalty to Christ or to Caesar when
Caesar tramples the cross beneath his feet. But at first
Roman law did not seriously interfere with the spread of
Christianity. Judaism was tolerated and Christianity was
treated as a sect of Judaism. "This tolerance of the Jewish
religion was of incalculable importance to infant Christianity,
which at first professed to be no more than a reformed and
expanded Judaism. * 2 When the distinction was finally drawn
by Roman law, Christianity was too powerful to be suppressed.
It was able to fight the mightiest empire of earth.

1 Harnack, Acts of the Apostles, p. 288. Luke "reflects very early con
ceptions and expresses historical relations which existed at the time of
St. Paul."

2 Angus, Int. St. B. Encycl. ("Roman Empire").

CHAPTER XVI

NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 1

"And casting off the anchors, they left them in the sea, at the same
time loosing the bands of the rudders; and hoisting the foresail to
the wind, they made for the beach" (Acts 27 : 40).

Few chapters in any book have a fascination surpassing that
in Acts 27. Here we see Luke the sailor, the man of travel,
the man of observation. The habits of diagnosis as a doctor
played him in good stead in seeing the points of interest in the
voyage and shipwreck. He had quick eyes that saw the sa
lient points at issue. He may have made notes during the
storm, or he may have written out his vivid recollections after
reaching Rome. He had doubtless made many voyages before
and knew the ways of the sea.

1. The Immense Value of Acts 27. Luke makes it plain that
Paul made frequent voyages to carry on his work. He sailed
from Seleucia to Cyprus (Acts 13 : 4), from Troas to Neapolis
(16: 11), possibly from Beroea to Athens (17: 14), from Cen-
chrese to Ephesus (18 : 18), from Ephesus to Caesarea (18 : 21 f.),
to Macedonia again (20 : 1), from Philippi to Troas (20 : 6),
from Assos with various stops to Csesarea (20:13-21:14).
But it is plain that Luke has not recorded, even in this sum
mary fashion, all the voyages of Paul, for he himself says:
"Thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been
in the deep" (II Cor. 11 :25), and he also spoke of "perils in
the sea" (II Cor. 11:26). These experiences were several
years before the famous voyage narrated at length and with
such power in Acts 27.

But it is Acts 27 that really shows Luke and Paul at their
best in the sea. "The story is told with such a wealth of
detail that in all classical literature there is no passage which
gives us so much information about the working of an ancient
ship." 2 We have other narratives of ancient voyages in mer
chant vessels. Josephus 3 tells that the ship on which he was

lf The Record of Christian Work, August, 1920.
2 Rackham, p. 476. Vita, III.

206

NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 207

wrecked carried about six hundred persons. Lucian 1 pictures
the voyage of an Alexandrian wheat-ship on its course from
Alexandria to Myra and to Athens. The ship had a tonnage
of twelve hundred tons. Herod the Great had a shipwreck
also on his way to Rome from Alexandria. In stormy weather
he took ship to Pamphylia and was shipwrecked at Rhodes,
with loss of the ship s cargo. There he built a three-decked
ship and set sail with his friends for Brundisium in Italy and
so reached Rome. 2 In the Periodoi of Barnabas we have the
description of "a voyage from Seleucia in Syria to Cyprus in
the face of a prevailing steady westerly wind the work of a
person familiar with the circumstances." 3 But these narra
tives all fall short of the one by Luke in Acts 27. "It is to
Luke that we owe the most vivid as well as the most accurate
account of sea-voyaging that has come down to us from an
tiquity. Experts in naval science agree that it is without a
parallel." 4 There is no trouble in believing that the second
vessel in Acts 27 carried two hundred and seventy-six souls
(27 : 37), or that the third vessel, the Castor and Pollux, carried
these besides its crew and cargo (28 : 11).

The Phoenicians and the Greeks were the sailors of antiquity.
They were those "who go down to the sea in ships and occupy
themselves in great waters." The Book of Revelation
(chap. 18) speaks of Rome as the city whose ships cover the
Mediterranean, whose merchants trade with all the earth.
That is true, for Rome drew the commerce of the world to her
doors. The mariners of all nations, "who work the sea" 5
(Rev. 18: 17) set sail for Rome. "Woe, Woe, the great city,
wherein all that had their ships in the sea were made rich by
reason of her costliness" (Rev. 18 : 19). The ancients dreaded
the sea, for they were without chart or compass and at the
mercy of wind and wave with their rowboats and sailing-ves
sels. One of the joys of heaven will be that "the sea is no
more" (Rev. 21 : 1). "The modern joy and delight in the sea
was a sentiment almost unknown to the peoples of antiquity.
One Greek poet, JEschylus, could write of the many-twinkling

1 The Ship or Wishes (IlXotov % Eu^O-

2 Josephus, Ant. XIV, xiv.

3 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 317.

4 Robinson, Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Ch. ("Ship").
6 oaot rf)v 66Xaaaav

208 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

smile of ocean/ but to the ancients generally the sea inspired
only emotions of dislike and dread. The incommodious ships
and the possibilities of long delays owing to contrary winds
made the voyage anything but a pleasure." 1 There was lack
of knowledge of navigation, and winter closed down the seas
on the Mediterranean. Neptune had terrors for the ancients
that appear in the allusions in classical literature, terrors
enough, one may add, without the modern agent of the devil,
the submarine. And yet some of the Greeks loved the sea.
Ramsay 2 says that Luke "shows the true Greek feeling for
the sea." It is interesting to observe that Nelson had been
reading Acts 27 on the morning of the battle of Copenhagen.

2. The Same Note of Accuracy in Acts 27. We have come
to have confidence in Luke the historian as we have tested him
in so many ways. It was to be expected that Acts 27 would
be subjected to the most minute research. Luke uses a great
deal of technical detail from the nature of the case. Every
statement here has been challenged by experts in naval mat
ters. The literature is now considerable. 3 Far the most val
uable is the work of Smith, of Jordanhill, The Voyage and Ship
wreck of St. Paul. He made a minute study of every aspect
of the voyage. There is a discussion of each of the three ships
(Csesarea to Myra, Myra to Malta, Malta to Puteoli) in which
Paul and Luke sailed, the size of the ships, the winds, the ton
nage, the number of passengers, the direction and speed of the
second ship in the storm, the island of Malta and every point
that is involved. It is all done with great thoroughness and
fairness, with the use of all knowledge that can be obtained
about ancient ships and seafaring.

Smith 4 says that Luke possesses two great qualifications for
writing this chapter. " The first of these is his perfect acquain
tance with nautical matters, and the second is his accuracy.
No man who was not in an eminent degree gifted with this
quality could have given a narrative capable of being tested as

1 Rackham, Acts, p. 475. 2 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 21.

3 J. Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 4th ed., 1880; A. Breus-
ing, Die Nautik der Alien, 1886; J. Vars, L Art nautique dans Vantiquite et
specialement en grec, 1887; H. Balmer, Die Romfahrt des Apostels Paulus,
1905; C. Torr, Ancient Ships, 1894; Everitt, St. Paul s Journey to Rome,
1904; cyclopaedic article; E. Smith, "Last Voyage and Shipwreck of St.
Paul" (Homiktic Review, August, 1919).

4 Op. cit., pp. 25 f .

NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 209

his has been in the following examination. He must not only
have been an accurate observer, but his memory must have
been accurate, and his habits of thought and reasoning no less
so." This judgment Smith renders after thorough and pains
taking examination of every detail. "St. Luke, by his accu
rate use of nautical terms, gives great precision to his language,
and expresses by a single word what would otherwise require
several." 1 As one illustration of his accuracy take the dis
tance and direction from Clauda to Malta. Luke has only a
few disjointed allusions to these matters in his narrative, and
yet they work out like a modern log-book the dead reckoning
of the ship s course and speed. The distance was four hun
dred and seventy-six miles, and this would take a little over
thirteen days (on the fourteenth day, 27 : 27), at the rate of
drifting of one and one-half miles an hour. The direction, as
the result of the Euraquilo or east-northeast wind (27 : 14) and
tacking eight points to the north (as close to the wind as was
safe), would bring one to the island of Malta. 2 "Hence, ac
cording to these calculations, a ship starting late on the eve
ning from Clauda would by midnight on the fourteenth be less
than three miles from the entrance of St. Paul s Bay." 3

And this is not all. The measurements by fathoms, twenty
and fifteen (27 : 28), corresponds to the coast there. And there
is a bay with a place where two seas meet (27 : 41), and to this
day it is called St. Paul s Bay. 4 Surely, then, Luke is entitled
to consideration in the details to be examined.

3. The Personality of Paul Dominant in the Narrative. Fas
cinating as the story is, Luke did not write his narrative just
to depict a shipwreck. He is not consciously writing a "pur
ple" passage. He describes the voyage at all only because of
his interest in Paul. "The very desperateness of the situation
throws into the strongest relief the personality of S. Paul.
At the moment of utter despair he rises up in the midst and is
found a rock on which all can trust, the inspirer of hope and
the master-mind which is able to direct and command as the
crisis requires in a word, their saviour. Nowhere in the Acts
is there a finer display of sympathy and strength. Thus the
very passages which glorify the apostle and for that reason
suspected by some critics are those which contain S. Luke s

1 Ibid., p. 61, note. 2 Smith, op. cit., pp. 122-6.

3 7WdL, p. 126. &lt; Ibid., p. 172.

210 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

motive for relating the history of the voyage, and the multitude
of details supply the necessary background." 1

It is true that Paul is a prisoner, but he is treated with the
utmost consideration 2 by Julius the centurion, who has charge
of all the prisoners and the soldiers 3 and is the ranking Roman
officer on each of the ships, outranking the captain, who with
us would be in complete control of the vessel. Ramsay 4 argues
plausibly that Luke and Aristarchus were able to accompany
Paul by offering themselves as his slaves for the voyage. Pris
oners would not be allowed to have mere friends. In Luke s
narrative "Paul admonished them" (27 : 9 f.) at Fair Havens,
where the centurion 5 called a council to determine what to do
now that it was so late in the season, for "the Fast was already
gone by" (27:9), the Great Day of Atonement, about Octo
ber 5 in A. D. 59, and it was now necessary either to spend
the winter in Fair Havens or to find a better harbor like Phoenix
near by in Crete (27:12). Luke does not mention that it
was a formal council, but Ramsay 6 feels sure that one was
held else Paul would not have dared to offer his advice. Prob
ably Paul, though not Luke, was invited to the council because
of his prominence. Those next to the centurion in rank were
"the pilot 7 and captain 8 of the ship" (27: 11), and not "the
master and owner of the ship," as even the Revised Version
has it. The captain and sailing-master (pilot) were merely
advisers of the centurion in this council. Paul gave his advice
with his warning and prophecy along the line of common sense
and experience, but he was brushed aside as not a technical
expert. Preachers are not credited with business sense, but
he laughs best who laughs last. The centurion found the soft
south wind proof of his wisdom and set sail (27: 13). The
sequel justifies Paul up to the hilt, though he remained quiet
till neither sun nor stars had shone upon the ship for many
days, and all hope of being saved was now taken away and

1 Rackham, Acts, 476. 2 &lt;JxXav6pa&gt;&gt;? (Acts 27 : 3).

3 axeipa ZspaaTTj (27 : 1), "the troop of the Emperor," Ramsay calls it
(St. Paul the Traveller, p. 315), in popular Greek language.

4 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 316. | 5 IxaTovdcpxT]?.

6 Op. ciL, p. 323. 7 xupepv^tTjs, our "governor."

8 va6x)oqpo&lt;;. Ramsay, op. tit. (p. 324), shows by inscriptions that
e[xxopoq is the name for "owner" of the ship and va&xXTjpoq "captain."
Knowling, in loco, agrees with Ramsay, though Breusing argues for
"owner "for va6xXijpo&lt;;.

NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 211

they had been long without food (27 : 20). Then he was able
to say with telling effect: "I told you so." But he did it
courteously and aimed to help the despairing company. He
urged courage and confidence in God, who will spare their
lives, though the ship will be lost, as an angel of God has
shown him. Paul himself is to stand before Csesar, and God
has spared them in answer to his prayers (27 : 21-26). It is a
crowning moment for Paul. From henceforth he is the real
master of the company. All now look to Paul for light and
leading.

Once again Paul stepped to the front to expose the dastardly
plot of the sailors to escape in the life-boat and to leave the
ship and all on board to the mercy of the storm (27 : 30-32).
Now the centurion was quick to hearken to Paul and he had
the soldiers "cut away the ropes of the boat, and let her fall
off."

Once more as they waited for dawn on the f ourteentlu day
Paul urged that they break their long fast and eat something,
appetite or no appetite, so as to have strength for the work
of rescue, promising that God would spare all their lives
(27:33-36). Thus he restored the courage of all. "Then
were they all of good cheer, and themselves also took of food."

Paul was never more Luke s hero than on these great occa
sions. Rackham 1 thinks that Luke also meant to draw a
spiritual lesson in the obvious parallel between the experience
of Paul to that of Jonah in the Old Testament, with the differ
ence that the New Testament prophet of the Gentiles, unlike
Jonah, was obedient to the heavenly vision, and did not bring
on the storm, but, rather, was the reason for the rescue of all
on board. The glory of the occasion was that Paul so led the
crew and passengers to trust God and to be courageous that
"they all escaped to the land" (27:44). One may think as
he will about the parallel to Jonah, but there is no dispute*as
to the dignity of Paul s bearing throughout the whole voyage.
His conduct on the island of Malta was of a piece with that
on board the ship. Paul won power with the barbarians as
he had gained power on the ship (28 : 1-10).

4. The Language of a Cultivated Landsman. The autoptic
character of Luke s narrative is obvious to all. And yet, in
the main, he "regularly uses the terms of educated conversa-

* Ads, p. 477,

212 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

tion, not the strict technical names. " l Lieutenant Edwin
Smith notes that "St. Luke fails to make any reference to the
condition of the ship (on the arrival at Fair Havens), an omis
sion which a real sailor would not have made." 2 Lieutenant
Smith, of Toronto, was in command of a patrol ship that
patrolled from Dunkirk to Zeebrugge and assisted in putting
up a smoke-screen for the monitors during the bombardment
of Zeebrugge. From November, 1918, to March, 1919, he
was in the Mediterranean service. He spent some time with
his ship in Valetta harbor in the island of Malta, "within ten
miles of the very spot where this, the most famous shipwreck
in the world s history, took place." 3 Hence his interest in
Luke s narrative.

Smith, of Jordanhill, 4 says that "although his descriptions
are accurate, they are, as I have already observed, unprofes
sional." Smith explains what he means by "unprofessional":
"The seaman in charge of the ship has his attention perpetu
ally on the stretch, watching every change or indication of a
change of wind or weather. He is obliged to decide on the
instant what measures must be taken to avail himself of favor
able changes or to obviate the consequences of unfavorable
ones. Hence in describing them he naturally dwells upon
cause and effect. He tells us not only what he has done, but
why it was done." We do not see this seaman s interest in the
technical matters. The landsman notes what the seaman
would take for granted and omits scientific details for which
he would care most. "Now these are exactly the peculiarities
which characterize the style of St. Luke as a voyage-writer." 5
This judgment can be shown to be correct by ample illustra
tions.

Luke speaks of loosing the bands of the rudders (27:40),
but does not tell how it was fastened. He speaks of hoisting
the boat on board (27:16) with difficulty, but does not say
what the difficulty was. He gives picturesque details that
interest the general reader like the frequent allusions to the
wind, "because the winds were contrary" (27:4), "the wind
not farther suffering us" (27:7), evidently the northwest wind,
though he does not say so. He mentions the south wind

1 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 315.

2 Homiletic Review, August, 1919, p. 104.

8 Op. cit., p. 102. Op. cit., p. 21. B Op. tit., p. 21.

NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 213

(27 : 13) and the sudden Euraquilo or E. N. E. wind that "beat
down from it (Crete) and caught the ship" (27 : 14 f.). Ram
say 1 quotes a ship-captain who told him his experience in the
Cretan waters: "The wind comes down from those mountains
fit to blow the ship out of the water." The mountains tower
seven thousand feet high and the sudden squall is typhonic 2
in violence. The ship "could not face the wind" (27:15),
"look the wind in the eye," 3 as Luke picturesquely puts it.
The effect of the wind on the waves appears often, as in
27:27, 41. This E. N. E. wind evidently blew steadily for
fourteen days on the second ship as the northwest wind had
blown on the first ship and the second to Fair Havens. There
is some doubt as to what Luke means in 27 : 12 about the har
bor at Phoenix, "facing northeast and southeast," or "looking
down the southwest wind and down the northwest wind." 4
The harbor faces east, not west. The language is that of sailors
on inbound vessels, as they sailed into the harbor. The men
tion of Syrtis, the quicksands, the rapid measures taken for
safety and the drifting before the wind (27 : 15-17) shows that
Luke is thinking of the main features of the events.

The use of the term the Sea of Adria (27 : 27) is also popular.
The technical use of the name was for the present Adriatic
Sea, but ancient writers sometimes applied it, as Luke does,
to the lower and wider expanse from Malta to Greece. The
fear and treachery of the sailors is a human touch, as is the
lightening of the ship of the cargo. It is not clear what Luke
meant by "driven to and fro in the Sea of Adria" (27:27),
probably the tossing of the waves by the wind as the ship
neared land. The beaching of the ship where two seas met 6
(27 : 41) probably refers to currents meeting between Falmouth
Island and Malta, where "the two seas continue to meet until
this day." 6 But the main points of the story stand out in
sharp relief and the four stages of the voyage in three ships
(Csesarea to Myra, Myra to Fair Havens, Fair Havens to
Malta, Malta to Puteoli).

5. Technical Terms in the Narrative. Luke was not a sailor,

1 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 327. * Tu&lt;J&gt;Gwx6&lt;; (27 : 14).

3 dvTo4&gt;0aXnecv rep &lt;*v(p (27 : 15).

4 ^Xlxovra xard X$a xal xa-rd xwpov.

6 e? T6icov StWeXaooov Ix^xeiXav r?)v vauv.

6 Lieutenant Smith, Horn. Rev., August, 1919, p, 110.

214 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

but a landsman. And yet he was not a landlubber. He
loved the sea and knew the sea by experience, else he could
never have written this chapter. No study of books could
have given him the ready and accurate use of technical terms
that we see. Lieutenant Smith 1 holds that Luke spent years
on the sea as a traveller. He suggests that Luke may have
been a surgeon on some of the Mediterranean vessels. Luke
knew the language of the sea. "We sailed under the lee of
Cyprus" (27:4), "keeping northward with a westerly wind
on the beam." 2 So "we sailed under the lee of Crete" (27 : 7),
but "running under the lee 3 of a small island, Clauda" (27 : 16).
"Here they ran before the wind under the lee of Clauda." 4

The officers (27 : 11) on the second ship are the pilot or sail
ing-master or steersman, 5 and the captain. These are both
under the control of the centurion. The sailors 6 (27 : 27, 30)
detected the nearness of land by the soundings. The ship is
called by the old classic Greek word 7 only once (27:41) and
it occurs here alone in the New Testament. The skiff or life
boat was towed behind.

The word for the gear 8 or sail (27 : 17) which was lowered
in the storm was used of the sheet seen by Peter in his vision
at Joppa (10:11). There was another word for the small
foresail 9 which was hoisted up to the wind in time of storm
(27 : 40). Roman ships did not usually have a sail at the
stern. 10 The large mainsail was fastened to a long yard. It
was reefed 11 in time of storm: "We gave way to it and were
driven" (27:15). Robinson 12 thinks that Paul may have
made sails as well as tents, and may have thus earned his
passage in some of his voyages. Some (Blass, Breusing) inter
pret "gear" (27 : 17) to mean cables with weights attached to
retard the progress of the ship. Luke does not speak of masts,
though they are implied. The Romans had three-masted ves
sels, though most of them, like the corn-ships, had only the
mainmast and the foremast.

1 Op. cit., p. 103. 2 Ramsay, op. cit., p. 328. u-jcs &lt; rcXe6ja[jiev.

3 JixoSpa^vre?. 4 Ramsay, op. tit., p. 328.

6 Called 6 e&e&vuv in Jas. 3:4. 6 vaOrat.

7 vau?. Elsewhere xXolov for the ship (27 : 15, 30) and the little boat
was termed ax&&amp;lt;j&gt;Y) (27 : 16).

8 oxeuo?. 9 tbv dpTd(jLo&gt;va.

10 J. Smith, op. tit., p. 192. !xtS6vTe&lt;; I4&gt;ep6{ie8a.
"Hastings s Diet, of Ap. Ch. ("Ship").

NAUTICAL TERMS IN ACTS 27 215

The word "helps" l (27 : 17) was applied to cables for under-
girding and strengthening the hull of the ship to prevent the
ship s timbers from straining too much in a storm. They
were used either transversely amidship under the keel or
lengthwise from stern to stern. The tackling 2 of the ship
(27 : 19) included all the ship s necessary furniture, everything
movable lying about or on the deck. The cargo or lading 3
(27 : 10) was wheat 4 (27 : 38) and it was thrown out only
toward the last. The ropes 5 (27 : 32) held the little life-boat.

The ship was impelled only by sail and not by rowers, as
many of the Greek ships were. The only paddles were the
rudders 6 (27 : 40), which were braced up with bands 7 so that
the anchors 8 could more easily be lowered at the stern
(27 : 29, 40). Four anchors are here mentioned, but others
were probably for use both at the prow (27 : 30) and the stern.
Anchors, now of iron with hooks or teeth-like extremities for
gripping, and no longer mere stones, were needed to keep
the vessel from dashing upon the rocks. As soon as they cast
off the anchors, the vessel, under the impact of the wind, made
for the beach (27 : 40). The anchors from the stern made it
unnecessary to turn the vessel in the storm, which was very
dangerous. Nelson lowered anchors from the stern at Copen
hagen. In Heb. 6 : 19 a beautiful use is made of hope, as the
anchor which lays hold of Jesus, the rock of our salvation,
out of sight within the veil, but sure and steadfast. This
anchor holds in every storm.

Each ship then, as now, had its individual ensign 9 (28: 11).
The third ship in this memorable voyage in which Paul and
Luke and Aristarchus embarked for Puteoli from Malta had
the sign of Dioscuri 10 (sons of Zeus) or twin brothers. As a
rule the sign was painted on the prow. 11 A flag usually floated
from the stern 12 and the whole hull was painted. The ancients
may not have used camouflage, though ornaments (a swan or
a goose head) were painted on the stern-post. Sometimes
eyes 13 were painted on the prow of the vessel (27 : 15).

1 $OTj0e(ai&lt;; e%p6)VTO &xot/ovv6vTS rb xXotov.

2 axeu^. 3 &lt;f&gt;opTfov. Cf. Gal. 6 : 5.
4 OITOV. 6

8 dcyxupa?. 9 xapdtarj^ov.

10 Aioaxo&pots. Castor and Pollux. u ex XP^PTJ? (27: 30).

12 iv. xp6{Avrj&lt;; (27:29). 13 So had the wind eye to eye.

216 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

The sounding 1 was done by sounding-leads 2 or plumb-lines
dropped at intervals. Modern sailors follow the same method
for telling the approach of land.

It is a wonderful story that Luke has told in Acts 27. He
knew the lingo of the sailors and was at home on the sea. He
employs fourteen verbs about the progress of a ship, and all
but three occur in Luke alone in the New Testament. 3

Ramsay 4 concludes that the only difficulty that remains in
Smith of JordanhuTs identification of St. Paul s Bay in Malta
as the scene of the shipwreck is the fact that it is not now a
sandy beach. But the waves may have washed away the
sand during the centuries. It is a wonderful story and one is
content to leave it now as it stands. "We have seen in our
examination that every statement as to the movements of the
ship from the time when she left Fair Havens until she was
beached at Malta, as set forth by St. Luke, has been verified
by external and independent evidence of the most exact and
satisfying nature." 5 What more has one a right to demand
of Luke or of any historian ? This chapter alone would rank
Luke among the great writers of the world.

3 J. Smith, op. cit., pp. 27 f. Op. til., p. 241.

6 Lieutenant Smith, Horn. Rev., August, 1919, p. 110.

CHAPTER XVII

THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 1

"Paul, standing on the stairs, beckoned with the hand unto the
people; and when there was made a great silence, he spake unto
them in the Hebrew language" (Acts 21 : 40).

The decision that Luke wrote the Acts does not necessarily
show that the speeches in the book are authentic. 2 This sep
arate question calls for special inquiry.

1. The Custom of Ancient Historians. We have the example
of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Livy, Josephus,
Tacitus, Dio Cassius, to go no further. These writers record
numerous speeches. Are they verbatim reports such as a mod
ern stenographer takes down or like the speeches in the Con
gressional Record, printed even if not delivered? We know
that the ancients did have a system of shorthand. Speakers
then, as now, would make notes of speeches that were not
written out in full. Part of the business of advocates, like
Lysias in Athens, was to compose speeches for men to make
in self-defense before the Athenian assembly. The speeches of
Demosthenes were written by himself, and bear the marks of
the most elaborate preparation and finish to the last detail.
The same remark applies to the speeches of Cicero, which he
himself wrote out. But the funeral oration of Pericles does
not stand upon the same level of genuineness. Thucydides
composed such an address as was suitable to represent the
ideas of Pericles for the occasion. To-day we have modern
reporters for addresses of importance that are not in manu
script form. Percy Gardner says: "We know very well that
there was no class of reporters of speeches in antiquity. Nor if
there had been would they have reported the words of an
obscure itinerant Jew." 3 But Luke was not wholly dependent
upon official reporters for his knowledge of the various ad-

^omiletic Review, Vol. 80.

2 M. Jones, St. Paul the Orator, p. 9.

3 "The Speeches of St. Paul in Acts" (Cambridge Bible Essays, p. 392).

217

218 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

dresses that he has preserved in Acts. Still, we must not try
to hold ancient historians to the precise methods and aims of
modern writers. Gardner 1 insists that ancient writers cared
more for style and convention, and were more conventional
when they were composing works of art. "When an ancient
historian inserts in his narrative a speech by one of the char
acters of his history, it is only in quite exceptional cases that
we are to suppose that such a speech was actually delivered,
or that he means to say that it was actually delivered. It
was a regular convention of historical writing that the his
torian should express his views of a situation by making the
chief actors in that situation utter speeches in which it is ex
plained." 2 That is true, but it does not follow that Luke nec
essarily did the same thing. At any rate, one must look at
the facts as far as they can be obtained. Gardner 3 refuses to
put the speeches of Paul in Acts on a par with Romans and
Galatians in historical value.

There were three methods employed by ancient writers in
reporting addresses. One plan was to write a sort of prose
drama with free composition of speeches for the characters like
the English and Roman historical plays of Shakespeare. One
sees this method in Herodotus and Tacitus. Another method
was rhetorical rather than dramatic and is seen in Thucydides
and Sallust. Thucydides frankly acknowledged his practice.
These are free compositions of the writer, but they embody
reminiscences of the author and of witnesses of the events who
heard the address. Machiavelli as late as the sixteenth cen
tury had the same method. Here the address was a fact and
the report contains a modicum of the real ideas of the speaker
as touched up by the writer. Another method was to give a
condensed report of the address such as we find in the Gos
pels, where often extracts from Christ s sermons occur rather
than the full discourse. There was freedom in the rendering of
the sense of the sayings of Jesus, though the substance be the
same. One can test Luke s own method here in using Mark,
the Logia and the other sources for his Gospel. Gardner 4
thinks that each writer had his own custom in the matter.
" And that which at present concerns us is what conventions in
this respect were observed by Luke, who must, as has already

1 Ibid., p. 392. 2 Ibid., p. 393.

1 Ibid., p. 392. 4 Ibid., p. 393.

THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 219

been observed, be regarded as a Greek literary man, and one
of very great talent." 1

2. Luke as a Reporter. One class of writers regards the
speeches in the Acts as mere rhetorical exercises without any
historical worth (Schmiedel, S. Davidson, Bacon). These men 2
argue that the picture of Paul in the speeches in the Acts is
contradictory and unlike that in his Epistles. If Luke followed
the method of Herodotus and Tacitus, we must not appeal to
the speeches in Acts for the ideas of any one but Luke himself.

Gardner 3 holds that "Luke in his use of speeches stands be
tween the ethical and dramatic tendency of Herodotus and
Tacitus and the rhetorical tendency of Thucydides and Sal-
lust." That is to say, Gardner ranks Luke above Herod
otus, but below Thucydides. "In the Gospel the rhetor
ical bent is far less clearly to be traced than in the Acts."
That is to say, Gardner considers the birth stories in Luke 1
and 2 to be "in a region of myth," "hymns, very beautiful
and very Christian, but freely composed for the persons in
whose mouths they are put." Gardner 4 offers us this consola
tion that "if so, we gain a very high view of the extraordinary
versatility and literary skill of the Evangelist." He thinks
that Luke is more of a compiler than a composer in the sayings
of Jesus. In the Acts "the circumstances are different." "It
is impossible to deny the possibility or even the probability
that the author may have built in some degree upon reports
and rumors of speeches made upon striking occasions by the
leaders of the Church. But the language is certainly Lukan." 5
Gardner 6 thinks it far more likely that a careless historian like
Luke would freely compose the speeches than that he "would
search out hearers of these speeches and make precise notes of
their recollections." That is plausible, but it is wholly a priori,
as one can see, and rests upon a theory of Luke s historical
worth that has been discredited by the researches of Ramsay.
Moffatt 7 holds that "the excellent historical sense of the
author" restrained Luke, "who, while following in the main
the ordinary methods of ancient historiography in the compo
sition of such speeches, was careful to avoid moulding and

1 Ibid., p. 394. 2 See Schmiedel, "Acts" in Encycl. Biblica.

3 Op. cit., p. 394. 4 Op. cit., p. 394.

5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., p. 395.

7 Mr. to Lit. of N. T., p. 306.

220 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

shaping his materials with a freedom which should obliterate
the special cast of their aim and temper. These materials
were probably furnished in the main by oral traditions."
Certainly, this is a much more likely picture of the facts than
that of either Schmiedel or Gardner.

But, after all, with Luke s own account of the sayings of Jesus
in the light of Mark and Q, one cannot help wondering why
we are forbidden to think that Luke followed the same method
in the Acts. If he consulted sources, written and oral, for the
addresses of Jesus in the Gospel, as can be proven, it is natural
to think that he pursued the same careful research in the Acts.
He made selections from the material in the Gospel, as he
apparently did in the Acts. His reports in the Acts vary in
the degree of completeness, as in the Gospel. We know that
Luke heard some of Paul s addresses, which he reports. He
had abundant opportunity to consult those who heard others,
as we have seen in the study of the sources of the Acts. Luke
was in touch personally with James and Paul. Philip and
Paul heard Stephen. Mark and Philip and Manaen heard
Peter. "The speaker in the earlier part may represent not
untrustworthily the primitive Jewish-Christian preaching of
the period." l

Besides, one can test the speeches of Peter, James, and Paul
by their Epistles. No one claims that Luke read those Epis
tles and aimed to reproduce their style and teaching. It is
admitted on all sides that the speeches of the different speakers
in the Acts differ and have a striking verisimilitude to the
probable facts. 2 If Luke composed them all, he was a remark
able literary genius. It is worth while to examine the facts
and see if it is not true that, while Luke s own style appears in
various ways in the condensed reports, after all the reports
faithfully represent the substance and the essential language
of the original addresses.

3. The Speeches of Peter. Fortunately there are a number
of these, such as the address to the one hundred and twenty
concerning the fate of Judas and the choice of his successor
(1 : 15-22), the great address at Pentecost (2 : 14-39), the

1 Moffatt, ibid., p. 305.

2 Blass, Ada Apostolorum, p. 11: "Quo intentius has orationes inspexeris,
eo plura in eis reperies, quce cum sint temporibus personisque egregie accom-
modata, ad rhetoricam licentiam scriptoris referri se veient."

THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 221

speech at Solomon s porch (3 : 12-26), three before the Sanhe-
drin (4 : 8-12, 19; 5 : 29-32), one to Ananias (5 : 3-4) and one
to Sapphira (5:9), the address to Cornelius and his household
(10:28-29, 34-43, 47), the defense in Jerusalem (11:4-17),
the address at the Jerusalem conference (15 : 7-11). Here we
possess data sufficient for a comparison with I Peter and
II Peter, also, if one does not reject it as a basis of comparison.
Bigg 1 in his excellent Commentary does not draw any com
parison between the language and theology of I Peter and
Peter s speeches in Acts. He thinks it likely that Silvanus
polished up Peter s Greek in this Epistle, and as Luke s own
style appears to some extent in the speeches the comparison is
not easy.

And yet the fundamental ideas in Peter s theology appear
in his speeches. Peter s speeches reflect the new light and the
new courage that came with Pentecost and that shine in his
Epistles. It is probable that Peter delivered all these ad
dresses in Aramaic, as was his later custom, with Mark as
interpreter, except that at Pentecost, where Jews from all over
the world were present, and that at Csesarea to Cornelius.
These two were probably in Greek. Peter was bilingual, as
was Paul, though he was far less at home in the Greek than
Paul. If Luke made use of Aramaic sources for the Gospel
(chapters 1 and 2), he could do so for Peter s speeches when
necessary. Knowling thinks that Luke had written sources
for Peter s speeches besides the benefit of the recollections of
those who heard them. We know that Peter s addresses are
not reported in full, for "with many other words he testified
and exhorted them" (Acts 2:40). It is quite possible that
Peter himself made brief notes of some of his more important
addresses after they were delivered, or others may have done
so at Luke s request. Moffatt 2 quotes Overbeck as saying:
"To the doctrinal discourses of Peter we may in a certain sense
grant that they faithfully represent the primitive preaching of
the Messiah by the Apostles, and that so far they possess a
certain originality." That is a very cautious statement and
far short of the whole truth. The Christology of Peter s
speeches is primitive and is to be compared with that of Mark
and Q. It is primitive in comparison with that of Paul s
Epistles and of Peter s Epistles. "It is clear that these early

1 P. 6. 2 Op. tit., p. 305.

222 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

chapters give a picture of the primitive community which is
quite different from what existed within the experience of the
writer, and Pwhich is in itself probable." l The speeches of
Peter reproduce an early stage of development, just as the
birth narratives in Luke 1 and 2 are the most primitive things
in the New Testament. There is no doubt whatever about
the primitive picture of Christianity in Acts 1-12, where Peter
figures. It is natural to think that Luke drew this picture
from actual data.

4. The Speech of Stephen. This speech (7 : 2-53, 56, 59) has
every mark of genuineness. It will not do to say that Luke
could not have gotten a report of this address. Paul himself
heard it (Acts 8 : 1; 26 : 10). Philip almost certainly heard it.
Either could have reproduced the line of argument for Luke.
Stephen himself may have made a full outline of his address
in Aramaic, since it was a formal defense or apologia. There
are Lukan turns of thought in the report, but not more than
is natural if Luke translated an Aramaic document. There are
in the speech a number of variations from and additions to the
Old Testament, some of which appear in Philo. Stephen dis
puted in Jerusalem in "the synagogue of the Libertines, and
of the Cyrenians and of the Alexandrians" (Acts 6:9). He
was a Hellenistic Jew, like all the seven (6:5), and may have
been from Alexandria, and probably disputed with Saul in the
synagogue of Cilicia (6:9). It is not necessary here to survey
the points where Stephen and Philo agree. Rackham 2 has
presented them fully. They are chiefly extrascriptural details,
such as appear also in the Talmud and in Josephus. In the
ministry of the angels in the giving of the ten commandments
(Acts 7:53) Stephen is followed by Paul (Gal. 3: 19). But
the significant thing is that Luke preserves these items, which
are so different from the Old Testament and from the rest of
the New Testament.

The speech itself fits in perfectly with the picture that Luke
has drawn in the Gospel and in the Acts. Jesus himself was
arraigned before the Sanhedrin on the charge of blasphemy,
because false witnesses were bribed to say that he was going
to destroy , the temple, with the pretense that he could build
it again in three days. Jesus kept silent and only confessed
on oath that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, but they

1 Headlam, Hastings s D. B. ("Acts"). 2 The Acts, pp. 99-102.

THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 223

crucified him. Stephen made a formal apology, and they
stoned him in a rage, lynched him like a mob, as they tried to
do to Jesus several times, and probably would have done if
he had made a defense as Stephen did.

The inner connection of the spirit of Stephen with the his
tory argues for the authenticity of the speech. The Twelve
Apostles had trouble from the Sadducees because they pro
claimed the resurrection of Jesus, while the Pharisees held
aloof. Stephen, himself a Hellenist, was the first to see the
wider reach of the mission of Jesus, that not only included
Gentiles and Jews, but treated Gentiles as on a par with Jews.
Stephen saw that Jesus thought the spiritual nature of wor
ship independent of place or race, as Jesus expounded to the
Samaritan woman in John 4. The Hellenistic Jews in the
synagogues in Jerusalem saw that Stephen robbed the Jews of
their prerogatives and privileges, and bluntly charged him
with preaching against Moses and God. Thus quickly Stephen
had created a revolution of which he was the victim. He
roused the Pharisees, who turned on him as they had on Jesus,
but more suddenly and more fiercely. Stephen s passionate
speech is the longest in the Acts, as long as any three of Paul s
sermons, and is justified, because of the importance and sig
nificance of it to Luke s narrative. Stephen s career marks
the second stage in the apostolic history. "He, being made
perfect in a short time, fulfilled a long time; for his soul pleased
the Lord. Therefore it hasted from the midst of wickedness"
( Wisdom 4; 13 f.). ^

Stephen is the bridge (Rackham) from Peter to Paul in the
interpretation of Christ. Like Peter, Stephen makes Jesus a
second Moses, a prophet like unto Moses, but, unlike Peter at
this stage, he saw beyond the temple and the law to the free
men in Christ among the Gentiles who would come to Christ
without becoming Jews. Peter saw that later at Joppa and
Csesarea (Acts 10). Paul will one day become the great
champion of Gentile liberty against the Judaizers (see Gala-
tians). But now his soul raged against the man who had
struck at the glory of Moses, as he thought. Some day Paul
will find the true Israel in those very Gentiles (Romans 9-11).
At Athens Paul will expound eloquently to the cultured Greeks
the very gospel that God dwells not in temples made with
hands, for which he helped to stone Stephen now. Stephen

224 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

appealed to the covenant with Abraham before the law, as
Paul will do in Gal. 3 : 17. Stephen finally turned on the stiff-
necked and uncircumcised Jews who always resisted the Holy
Spirit (7 : 51), precisely as Paul will one day turn away from
the Jews to the Gentiles at Antioch in Pisidia (13 : 46) and at
Corinth (18:6). "If Stephen had not prayed, Paul had not
preached." Paul finally took up the torch of Stephen and
passed it on. Peter will preach the same glorious message,
also. Stephen was the man of vision, who saw the full truth
ahead of his time and dared to proclaim it.

Luke has given the trial and defense of Stephen a dramatic
setting and has shown the historian s insight in the way that
he has presented the whole story. The speech bears every
mark of a real report. It is full of life and power. It left its
mark on Paul. It blazed the way for the future expansion of
Christianity. It broke the shackles of Judaism. It defied
Pharisaism. It flashed before the Jewish world the heart of
Christ s message and mission to the whole wide world.

5. The Speech of James. In Acts 15 : 13-21 Luke has a
speech delivered by James, the brother of Jesus, who presided
over the conference in Jerusalem. In 15 : 23-29 he gives the
circular epistle drawn up apparently by James and adopted by
the conference and sent to Antioch by Judas and Silas, along
with Paul and Barnabas (15 : 22 f.), and later carried by Paul
and Silas to the churches of Galatia (15 : 4). It was common
enough to send a formal epistle by messengers or "apostles,"
as Paul did (cf . II Cor. 8 : 23) and as the churches did. The
Second Book of Maccabees begins with a letter about the puri
fication of the temple. It was easy enough for Luke to obtain
a copy of this circular epistle, since so many were distributed
to the churches. But this epistle embodied the resolution of
James in his address, and was almost certainly written by
James and read to the conference for their indorsement. In
the epistle the order is "Barnabas and Paul" (15: 25), for in
Jerusalem it is still "our beloved brother Barnabas" who has
more influence with the Christians then than Paul. In Galatia
and Antioch it had already become " Paul and Barnabas."

The style of the epistle and the speech of James is the same.
James calls Peter "Symeon," the Aramaic form of Simon, seen
also in II Peter 1:1. James indorses the speech of Peter and
proves by Scripture that Peter is right. James shows the

THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 225

same kind of practical wisdom in his speech 1 which settles the
controversy with freedom for the Gentiles and in harmony
with the teaching of the Old Testament in a way to satisfy all
Jewish Christians save the extreme Judaizers. It was a real
eirenicon, but no half-way compromise, and is strikingly like
the discussion in the Epistle of James (1:5; 3 : 10-18). Luke
was with James (Acts 21 : 18 f.) and would have no trouble in
getting the speech of James and the circular epistle to which
James refers (21 : 25), practically claiming to be the author of
the letter: "We wrote, giving judgment." James may have
delivered his speech in Aramaic, but he knows Greek well, as
his Epistle shows. If Luke translated the speech and the cir
cular letter, that would explain any Lukan traits discernible
in them.

The Epistle of James shows striking similarities to the speech
of James and the circular letter written by James. Mayor 2
says: "I cannot but think it a remarkable coincidence that,
out of two hundred and thirty words contained in the speech
and the circular, so many should reappear in our Epistle,
written on a totally different subject." It is possible that the
Epistle of James was written before the conference in Jeru
salem. 3 If so, James has written the first Epistle which has
come down to us, unless Galatians comes earlier, which I
consider quite unlikely. The circular letter, also written by
James, would then be the second Epistle preserved for us.
The Epistle of James bears a resemblance to the Cynic dia
tribe, 4 but the Jews were long familiar with this form of lit
erature. 5 Once more the data fit all the known facts, without
saying that Luke made up the speech of James and the circu
lar letter.

6. The Speeches of Paul. These addresses are the most
important items on this phase of the subject. They are the
basis of special treatises by Bethge, 6 Percy Gardner 7 and
M. Jones. 8 We may agree at once that these speeches of Paul

1 Rackham, Acts, p. 254. z Comm. on James, p. Hi.

3 Robertson, Practical and Social Aspects of Christianity, p. 35.

4 Ropes, Ep. of James, p. 16.

6 Cf. letters in II Chron. 21 : 12; 30 : 1; 32 : 17; Jer. 29 : 1, 25.

6 Die paulinischen Reden.

7 "The Speeches of St. Paul in Acts" (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp.
379-418).

8 St. Paid the Orator.

226 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

in Acts must all be examined separately, and that they do not
necessarily stand on the same level in point of proof as to
authenticity. Bethge 1 argues that the speeches of Paul all
show the marks of an eye-witness. We may agree with Gard
ner 2 that the speech to the elders of Ephesus at Miletus (Acts
20 : 18-35) has the best claim of all to be historic. But that
admission does not discredit the others as Gardner thinks.
He holds the speech at Athens (17:22-31) to be "the least
authentic of the Pauline discourses in Acts." That is pre
cisely the point to be examined. It is plain that the speeches
of Paul in Acts are only a small selection of an immense num
ber of addresses made by Paul. 3 It is true, also, that Luke
has chosen the occasions for the speeches which he does give,
so "as to bring into strong relief the various sides of his min
istry and of his doctrine." 4 But it is just as easy to suppose
that Luke, being with Paul in Rome when he wrote the Acts,
drew upon Paul s memory and upon Paul s notes and outlines
of his discourses as to imagine that Luke made a free composi
tion of Paul s addresses for the purpose of representing Paul
properly on various occasions. To me it is far simpler and
more natural to conceive that Luke followed his usual plan of
using all available data for his narrative. It is hard to see
why he should pass Paul by in the matter of his own speeches,
which he would surely wish to win Paul s sanction.

One must not make too much of Paul s reference to the
charge of his enemies in Corinth that "his speech is of no
account" (II Cor. 10 : 10), as if Luke had to write out eloquent
addresses for Paul on the set occasions in the Acts. Paul him
self did make disclaimers of rhetorical oratory after the order
of the Greek dialectic. 5 He preached the Gospel "not in wis
dom of words" (I Cor. 1 : 17) and "my speech and my preach
ing were not in persuasive words of wisdom" (I Cor. 2:4).
That is, from the standpoint of the false taste of the Corin
thians, some of whom later made the very charges against
him. But we have abundant proof of Paul s real power of
speech in his Epistles. There is no lack of passion and of
power in them and, at times, Paul rises to the heights of real

1 Die pavlinischen Reden, p. 174.

2 Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 401.

3 M. Jones, St. Paul the Orator, p. 3.

4 Gardner, op. cit., p. 395. * Jones, op. tit., p. 2.

THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 227

eloquence (cf. I Cor. 13, 15; Romans 8; Phil. 3). There is
variety in the style of Paul s Epistles according to subject-
matter and time and mood. It is no surprise, therefore, to
find like adaptations in his addresses to time and place and
theme. Paul spoke, as he wrote, to the audience before him.
He went after the verdict, though he always applied the eternal
principles of the Gospel to the topic in hand.

Gardner 1 thinks that two influences helped Luke to make a
good report of Paul s speeches: (1) his close relation to Paul
and (2) his fine dramatic sense, which would keep him from
grossly misrepresenting Paul. On the other hand, he thinks
that Luke was handicapped (1) by his sense of the conventions
of historic writing, and (2) " looseness and carelessness of state
ment, which almost obliterates for him the line between fact
and rumor, between that which actually occurred and that
which ought to have occurred." It is pure hypothesis to
shackle Luke with the conventional theories of Thucydides
and Josephus, when we can test his critical habit by his use
of Mark and Q. The alleged " carelessness " of Luke lies in
the imagination of Baur and Schmiedel. The facts of modern
discovery have effectually disposed of those wholesale charges
as we have already abundantly seen. The thing to do is to
test the reports of Paul s speeches by the canons of criticism.

Gardner 2 divides Paul s speeches into two classes: (1) those
at Antioch and Athens, which were "free compositions of
Luke"; (2) the later speeches, "which would naturally be
largely affected by personal memories." Gardner 3 denies that
he has taken away the "value" of Paul s speeches, for Luke
knew Paul s views so well that " his fine dramatic sense would
render him apt at expressing Paul s usual way of proceeding."
Chase 4 holds that Luke had actual data for all the speeches,
and retained Paul s original ideas, though he may have given
them "greater fulness and elaboration, and a more distinctly
literary flavor." Per contra, one must bear in mind that the
reports all bear evidence of great condensation. Hence Jones 5
is right in contending that "while they betray considerable
proofs of editing on St. Luke s part, in the way of summarizing
and epitomizing, many expressions and phrases being undoubt-

1 Op. tit., pp. 415 f. 2 Op. tit., p. 396.

3 Op. tit., p. 396. * The Credibility of the Ads, pp. 108 f.

6 Op. cU., p. 17.

228 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

edly Lukan, the utterances are, in the main, those of the
Apostle, and that through the major portion of their contents
we are listening to the voice of St. Paul himself." I feel sure
that this is a very moderate statement of the facts. The voice
of Paul is heard in these addresses as the voice of Jesus comes
to us in Luke s Gospel.

This judgment is reinforced by a consideration of the prob
able sources of the speeches of Paul. We know that Luke
was present at Miletus: "We came to Miletus" (Acts 20 : 15).
So he heard that notable address to the elders, the noblest of
all talks to preachers, save the many to the disciples by Jesus
in the Gospels. We know also that he was present in Jerusa
lem (21 : 17 f.) where Paul spoke to the mob from the steps of
the tower of Antonia (22 : 1-21). There is no reason for
thinking that he was not present in Caesarea, where Paul spoke
before Felix, Festus and Herod Agrippa II (24-26). Jones 1
argues that beyond a doubt the report of the address before
Agrippa is "the work of an eye-witness, or a copy from an
original source." We know that Luke was with Paul in Rome
(28 : 14, 16), and so heard Paul s two addresses to the Jews
there (28:17-28). Luke was also with Paul in Philippi
(Acts 16), but he was not present in Thessalonica, Bercea,
Athens or Corinth. We do not know that he was with Paul
in the first campaign in south Galatia. Jones 2 thinks that
the extremely vivid narratives and reports of Paul s extended
address at Antioch in Pisidia (13 : 16-41), and the striking
speech in Lystra (14 : 12-17) argue for Luke s presence with
Paul. But that is very uncertain. What we do know is that
Luke was with Paul and had every opportunity to obtain
Paul s recollections or notes of these addresses, which he him
self did not hear. "The trustworthiness of the speeches is,
therefore, in some measure, guaranteed by the fact, in the
case of many of them, that they are reported by one who
actually listened to them, and where this is not the case, they
are reproduced from materials supplied either by the speaker
himself or by his companions." 3

It is hard to overestimate the value of the Pauline speeches.
"The primary Pauline Gospel we owe almost entirely to the
speeches, and from this aspect they are invaluable. By means

1 Op. tit., p. 236. 2 Op. ciL, p. 19. * Ibid., p. 20.

THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 229

of these we are able to trace the Pauline system of doctrine
from its very rudiments." l

The genuineness of the speeches alone explains Luke s report
of two addresses so much alike as those in Acts 22 and 26, and
that cover the conversion of Paul already adequately told in
Acts 9. Besides, there are apparent inconsistencies on minor
points in these three accounts of Paul s conversion that yield
to plausible explanations on close study, but that are unnatural
if Luke composed all three reports. The repetition is other
wise needless and the discrepancies superfluous.

Ramsay 2 calls attention to the marvellous adaptation of
Paul s speeches to the local atmosphere, a coincidence hardly
possible for a writer composing at a distance. He cites the
address at Antioch in Pisidia, Lystra and Athens as instances.
Local color is reproduced precisely in each case. Ramsay
notes a likeness of tone in the speeches in Antioch and Lystra
and the Epistle to the Galatians. The speech in Athens is
attacked as unlike Paul in language and in spirit. But it is as
unlike Luke as it is Paul. The Attic flavor can be proof of
Paul s versatility. The appeal to natural theology occurs also
in the speech at Lystra and is precisely in harmony with Paul s
argument in Romans 1 and 2. It is not true that Paul sur
rendered his Gospel message in the presence of the Stoic and
Epicurean philosophers, for he accented repentance, judgment
and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He probably
meant to stress other great doctrines, if the whimsical Athe
nians had not cut short his address. Ramsay 3 notes that the
address at Lystra was more simple while that at Athens before
an educated audience took on a more philosophical turn. But
Paul attacked idolatry as courageously in Athens as in Lystra.
The sermon at Antioch in Pisidia is remarkable for its Pauline
doctrine of justification by faith instead of by works, and for
its grasp of the salient points concerning the life and death of
Christ. By means of the speeches we see Paul the preacher
as we could not otherwise know him. 4

There is no doubt that Luke has shown consummate skill
in reproducing strategic and dramatic staging for Paul s vari
ous addresses. That was his task as the historian. But he
has not been convicted of merely following the conventional

1 Jones, ibid., p. 21. 2 St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 144 ff.

3 Op. cit., p. 147, 4 See Rosser, Paul the Preacher.

230 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

practice of inventing the discourses for Peter, Stephen, James
and Paul which cut so large a figure in his book.

The very diversity exhibited is more readily explained by
the use of actual data for the various addresses. The short
speech of Tertullus (Acts 24 : 2-28) was made in public, as was
that of Festus in 25 : 24-27. The letter of Claudius Lysias in
23 : 27-30 was a public document. It is not so easy to explain
how Luke got the data for the conversation between Festus
and Agrippa in 25 : 14-22. But Luke may have resources of
which we know nothing. It is really amazing, all things con
sidered, how we can follow his tracks for nearly the whole of
the many discourses that adorn the Book of Acts. "He chose
rather to include the speeches as we possess them, with their
many difficulties, their manifest inconsistencies on some points,
because they represent the genuine utterances of his master." 1
We may thank Luke for this fidelity as for his other gifts and
graces.

1 Jones, op, tit,, p, 291.

CHAPTER XVIII

A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE

"There was a man of Macedonia standing, beseeching him, and
saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us" (Acts 16: 9).

This man was probably Luke, as we have seen. At any
rate, the sentence properly pictures Luke as a man of his times
who was interested in the world problems of his day.

1. The Versatility of Luke. We cannot have come thus far
in the discussion of the writings of Luke without seeing that
he was a man of great gifts and of fine culture. He had the
opportunity of scholastic training. He was accurate without
pedantry. Plummer 1 terms him " the most versatile of all the
New Testament writers." He was a man of genius who toiled
at his task like a plodder. "The humanism of the Hellenistic
world pervades him " 2 and yet he is simple in his love and
loyalty to Jesus as Lord and Saviour. He is a skilful physician
who reverently sees in Christ the Great Physician for both
soul and body. He can write literary Koine like Plutarch and
yet closely follows his Aramaic sources. He hides himself all
the while, and yet his own beautiful style crops out at every
turn. He has "the power of merging himself, all but his
style, in the persons of those whose story he is telling." 3 He is
a Greek and a Christian, a friend of Paul and of Theophilus,
a physician and a preacher, a literary man and a friend of the
poor, a champion of women and of children, a friend of the
good and of sinners, a historian and a poet, a mystic and a
musician, a humanitarian and a humanist, a traveller on land
and on sea, a student of the Scriptures and a medical mission
ary, a harmonizer of science and of theology, the interpreter
of Peter and of Paul, but most of all the lover and interpreter
of Jesus Christ, a man of prayer and of faith. "One cannot
help feeling how delightful and lovable as a man he must have
been." 4

1 Comm., p. xlix. 2 Gardner, op. cit., p. 387.

3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.

231

232 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

I cannot close this volume without some expression of my
own admiration for Luke. Even Percy Gardner 1 can say:
"All these qualities color the Gospel and the Acts alike, mak
ing them exquisite works of literary art and great monuments
of refined Christian feeling." It is small wonder that this
man so won the heart of Paul that he calls him "the beloved
physician." He has won the heart of the whole world. Ram
say 2 has a chapter on "The Charm of Paul." One could easily
write on the charm of Luke who charmed Paul. It is impossi
ble to exaggerate the importance of Luke s contribution to
Christianity. Luke and John and Paul and the author of
Hebrews (Apollos?) represent the acme of culture in early
Christianity. The author of Hebrews is the masterful inter
preter of Christianity in the light of Judaism and as its suc
cessor and superior. John is the rapt and clear-eyed mystic,
the eagle soaring above the clouds and the storm. Paul is the
mighty and masterful protagonist of Christ, the "Illuminator
of Luke," as Tertullian calls him. Luke is the versatile scholar
and the humane and gentle scientist who has painted his pic
ture-gallery of Jesus and his followers on broad canvas and in
bold and yet delicate lines.

2. Luke a Cosmopolitan. Luke was a citizen of the world
like Paul and even more so. Paul was a Jew with a touch of
the Greek and of the Roman who became a Christian. Luke
was a Greek in a Roman world who became a Christian. He
was without the racial and religious prejudices of the Jew,
though he came to take a lively interest in all things Jewish in
his study of Jesus. He shows great knowledge of the Septua-
gint. But Luke did not have to overcome the Jew s hostility
to the Gentiles. The Greek and the Roman were not taboo to
him as they were once to Peter and Paul. "He is a Universal-
ist who would have all men, to be saved, and for whom the
difference between Jew and Gentile does not present itself
with the same rigidity which it has in the mind of Paul." 3 It
is Luke who records the parable of the Good Samaritan who
does good to a poor wounded Jew by the roadside whom the
pious priest and the Levite pass by in dread of contamination.

For this reason Luke has no trouble in doing justice to the
Gentiles. He draws a kindly picture of Gallio, the Roman

1 Ibid. 2 Pauline Studies, pp. 25-45.

3 fiaivJruYi* t\*Y\ t**l I-N OQ-T

* ima.

8 Gardner, op. cit., p. 387.

A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE 233

proconsul, of Cornelius and Julius, the Roman centurions, of
Gamaliel, the Pharisaic leader and sage, of the kindly curiosity
about Paul in Athens. "He has got the sympathetic insight
which can thoroughly enter the feelings of different parties
such as Pharisees and Sadducees, Hebraists and Hellenists;
different classes of society Jews and Greeks, the populace and
better classes, local magistrates, Roman officials, Herodian
princes; different interests Pharisaic rabbis and Sadducaic
priests, Ephesian silversmiths and Jewish sorcerers, Roman
aristocrats and Greek citizens; differences of culture Athenian
philosophers and rustic Lycaonians; different professions sol
diers and sailors. Then this appreciativeness is made effective
by a gift of style. By a few vigorous touches he can make a
scene live before us." 1 Carpenter 2 devotes one chapter to
"S. Luke the Universalist." Hayes 3 calls his Gospel "The
Gospel for the Gentiles" because it was written by a Gentile
with Gentiles as well as Jews in mind.

He wrote for the whole Christian world. "Of the three
synoptic Gospels this is by far the most catholic in its sym
pathies and universalistic in its outlook." 4 Luke traces the
genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. He is fond of the words
grace, Saviour, salvation and evangelize. He makes Simeon
say that Jesus is "a light for revelation to the Gentiles" (2 : 32).
He alone calls three Roman emperors by name (Augustus,
Tiberius, Claudius). Van Oosterzee says that Luke raised
" sacred history from the standpoint of Jewish national nation
ality to the higher and holier ground of universal humanity."
Hayes 5 puts it thus: "It is the Gospel of the real humanity of
Jesus. It is the Gospel of Jesus as our Brother-Man. It is
the Gospel of the Kinsman-Redeemer of the race." It is the
Pauline Gospel and it is our Gospel, for we are mostly Gentiles,
but it is most of all the Gospel of Jesus the Saviour.

Chesterton 6 says of Jesus: "What nobody can possibly call
Him is a Galilean of the time of Tiberius." He was that, but
he was much more than that. He was the Son of Man as well
as the Jewish Messiah. This Luke saw clearly. Carpenter, 7

1 Rackham, The Acts, p. xlvi.

* Christianity According to S. Luke, pp. 212-227.

3 Syn. Gospels and Acts, pp. 205-216.

4 Ibid., p. 206. 6 Op. eU. t p. 253.
6 Hibbert Journal, July, 1909, p. 748. 7 Op. cit., p. 223.

234 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

however, adds : " Some of the Jews themselves had formed the
habit of speaking of their expected Hero as the Son of Man.
Who is this Son of Man? God is His Father, and the holy
nation is his mother. And for all his Jewish outlook, His
national patriotism, and His Galilean accent, He has over
leaped the bounds of nationality, and transcended the limita
tions of station, century, and sex. . . . He has created, inci
dentally, and almost casually, in the course of His redeeming
man s soul, the only true democracy that is ever likely to exist."
Luke sees and seizes the universal humanity of Jesus and traces
with masterful pen the expansion of the kingdom of God from
the handful of Galilean Jews to the confines of the Roman
Empire with the conquest of the world and of the ages as the
legacy of the risen Christ.

3. Luke s Picture-Gallery. But Luke is no abstract dreamer.
He is an internationalist, but a patriot first. He is not carried
awa^ by ideas to the neglect of personalities. Luke is a lover of
his human kind. He draws pictures of persons in the Gospel
and in the Acts by a few artistic touches. One can never for
get the picture of Zacharias, of Mary, of Elizabeth, of Simeon,
of Anna, in the opening chapters of the Gospel, or of Martha
and Mary in Luke 10, or of Cleopas and his companion in
Luke 24. But in the Gospel these all radiate around Christ.
Harnack 1 devotes a chapter to Luke s "Treatment of Persons."
In the Acts there are two chief characters, Peter and Paul, but
many others of second and third rank rotate around these.
Harnack sees nothing of value in the supposed parallelism be
tween Peter and Paul in the Acts, though he thinks that Luke s
picture of Paul is much more distinct than that of Peter, prob
ably because Paul was so much better known to Luke and be
cause, also, Paul was a bolder figure.

In the Acts there are mentioned one hundred and ten names,
besides groups of persons whose names are not given, "and of
these how extraordinarily their individuality is preserved." 2
After all, persons are the most interesting data for the his
torian. One can easily recall in the Acts Peter and John,
Ananias and Sapphira, Annas and Caiaphas and Gamaliel,
Stephen and Philip, James the brother of John and James the
brother of Jesus, Barnabas and Judas, Simon Magus and Bar-
jesus, John Mark and Silas, Ananias and Judas of Damascus,
1 The Acts, pp. 117-132. 2 Rackham, Acts, p. xlvii.

A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE 235

Saul also called Paul, Sergius Paulus and Gallic, Cornelius and
Julius, Dorcas and Lydia, Timothy and Erastus, Aristarchus
and Trophimus, Agabus and Apollos, Herod Agrippa I and II,
Aquila and Priscilla, Claudius Lysias and Tertullus, Felix and
Festus, Drusilla and Bernice, Demetrius and Publius.

Of this number Harnack 1 notes only five personages of sec
ondary rank from Luke s standpoint (Stephen, Philip, Barna
bas, James and Apollos). He observes, also, that all of these
save James the brother of Christ are Hellenists. Harnack
thinks that the emphasis upon Stephen lies in the fact that his
message was the bridge from Judaism to the Gentile world,
and that this motive dominates Luke in all his use of persons
in his story. -At any rate, Luke writes his book largely by the
use of biographical sketches.

But it is not a haphazard jumble. He has two heroes, Peter
and Paul, but Paul is the dominating figure of Acts next to
Christ, whose words and deed overshadow all ( Acts 1:1). ^

It is interesting to note that Luke reveals his true historical
insight by his estimate of Paul, who by no means cut so large a
figure with his contemporaries as he does with us. Luke has
the love of the disciple for his master in the case of Paul, but
he does not mar the history because of this attachment.
"Finally, S. Luke has demonstrated his artistic skill by welding
this complex variety of persons and places, times and seasons,
characters and circumstances, into one whole a whole in
which no tendency or side-issue dominates: and a whole so
complete that we entirely forget the variety, we are uncon
scious of the author and his method." 2 We are swept on with
the onward march of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome.
We see the greatest of all revolutions transforming Peter and
Paul from Jewish pride of privilege to world evangelization
and Christian freedom in Christ.

4. Sympathy with Sinners. We judge the sympathies of
Luke by his choice of material. The Christ of Luke is the
friend of sinners. A physician is brought into close contact
with the outcasts of society, those who are "down and out."
In a pre-eminent sense Luke pictures Christ as the friend and
saviour of sinners. The matchless parables in Luke 15 (the
Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, the Lost Son) are told by Christ, as
Luke explains (15 : 1 f.), because, when "all the publicans and

i Acts of the Apostles, p. 119. l Rackham, Acts, p. xlvii.

236 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

sinners were drawing near unto him to hear him, 5 "both the
Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, This man receiv-
eth sinners, and eateth with them." The charge was true,
gloriously true as we see, as Luke saw, but as the ecclesiastics
of the time did not see. "S. Luke s Gospel is a Gospel of sac
rifice and a Gospel for sinners. It contains the word sinners
more often than all the other three put together." l In Luke
7 : 37 the woman that was a notorious sinner anoints our
Lord, but Luke does not identify her with Mary Magdalene
in 8 : 2 or with Mary of Bethany. That is a gratuitous insult
that mediaeval theologians and painters have cast upon these
two noble women. But Jesus did forgive the sinful woman
who showed more love for Christ than his host, the proud
Pharisee (7 : 47). Luke rejoices in the courage of Jesus, as in
the case of Zacchseus (19:2-10): "The Son of Man came to
seek and to save that which was lost." Luke s Christianity
is for the bad as well as for the good, to cure sin as well as
sickness. Glover 2 quotes the German Jew Borne as saying:
"Christianity is the religion of all poor devils."

5. Sympathy with the Poor. So pronounced is the sympathy
of Luke with the poor that his Gospel has actually been charged
with Ebionitism and with class prejudice, with the modern
"Soviet" conception of class domination, the poor ruling the
rich. That is not true at all. Luke is interested in the rich
(19 : 2; 23 : 50), but he champions the poor because they needed
a friend (1 : 53; 2 : 7, 8, 24; 4 : 18; 6 : 20, 21; 7 : 22; 14 : 13, 22;
16:20, 23). Luke reports the special form of communism
among the early disciples in Jerusalem (Acts 4 and 5), but he
would not be a modern syndicalist, certainly not a Marxian
Socialist, or a Bolshevist. The physician sees the need and
hears the cry of the poor. "The physician who works only
for fat fees and who goes only when summoned by the well-
to-do may make his fortune, but he will miss his greatest pro
fessional opportunity in the service to the poor." 3 Luke records
Jesus as saying at Nazareth that the spirit of the Lord had
"anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor" (4:18).
Luke has simply "Blessed are ye poor" in 6 : 20. In the story
of Lazarus and the wicked Rich Man the beggar comes out

1 Carpenter, op, tit., p. 219.

2 Nature and Purpose of a Christian Society, p. 34.
* Hayes, op. cit., p. 237.

A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE 237

ahead in the end (16 : 19-31). No fiercer indictment of a rich
fool was ever drawn than in the parable of Jesus recorded by
Luke in 12:16-21. Luke represents Christ as inviting "the
poor and maimed and blind and lame" to the supper in the
parable (14 : 21). One of the amazing things about Jesus was
his interest in the poor. This great fact was reported to John
the Baptist as proof that Jesus was the Messiah (7 : 22).

Certainly, then, Luke believed in the dignity of man. Luke
wrote the gospel for the poor that Burns sang. "S. Luke s
conception of the Church was that it was a body in which the
poor and needy for the first time had a fair and equal chance." l
We need not ask whether Luke wished to abolish slavery,
though he may have once been a slave himself, as we have
seen. Professor Gilbert Murray 2 thinks that what made
Christianity conquer in the Roman Empire was "its intense
feeling of brotherhood within its own bounds, its incessant care
for the poor." We see that in I Cor. 1 : 26-31, where Paul
glories in the choice of the poor by God to confound the rich
and the mighty. Christ calls the men from the bottom up.
That is his crown of glory. There is no doubt about Lute
being a democrat. He traces the babe in the manger in Beth
lehem to the ascension on Olivet. Luke was a democrat who
was striving for a spiritual aristocracy, not of money, not of
blood, not of privilege, not of power, but of character, the
brotherhood of the cross of Christ, that is still the hope of the
world, the salt of the earth. Luke does not teach that it is a
virtue to be poor, but a poor man is, after all, a man, a man
worth saving, a man who may be rich toward God, and who
may enrich man by the noblest qualities of manhood and
service. "Even when Christianity had risen from the work
shop and the cottage to the palace and the schools of learning,
it did not desert the workshop and the cottage. The living
roots of Christianity remained in their native soil and in the
lower ranks of society." 3

6. Understanding Women. Christ made an appeal to
women, who early formed a band to help support him and his
disciples (Luke 8: 1-3). The rabbis in their liturgy thanked
God that they were not born women. But Jesus is the eman-

1 Carpenter, op. cit., p. 204.

2 Four Stages of Greek Religion, p. 180.

3 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 404.

238 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

cipator of women. Luke sees this truth and emphasizes it.
One of the traditions l about Jesus is that once when asked
"When shall the kingdom come?" he replied: "When the
two shall be one, and that which is without as that which is
within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female."
One may think what he will of the logion, but Paul in Gal. 3 : 28
says that in Christ "there is neither male nor female." To
the women of Palestine Jesus appeared as their sole champion
and hope because he treated them as personalities on a par
with men. "Mithraism, the most popular of the heathen
religions, was, like Islam, a religion for men only." 2 The
humanity of Christ is deeper than sex. Christianity made
great headway in the first century, partly because of its pow
erful appeal to women.

Luke was a physician and was brought into close contact
with women and their problems. He also lived in Philippi for
some years, where women had unusual privileges and oppor
tunities, Macedonia being in this respect far ahead of Achaia
or Asia. Luke knew how both Gentile and Jew looked down
on women. He saw the difference in Jesus. So we have
sketches of Elizabeth and Mary the mother of Jesus, the
prophetess Anna and the widow of Nain, the sinful woman in
the house of Simon and the woman with an issue of blood,
Mary Magdalene and the others of her band, Mary and Martha
of Bethany, the widow with the two mites and the daughters
of Jerusalem, the women at the tomb, Dorcas and Mary the
mother of John Mark, Sapphira and Priscilla, Drusilla and
Bernice, Lydia and Damaris. Luke wrote the gospel of woman
hood, full of sympathy and tenderness, full of understanding
of their tasks and their service. Dante describes Luke as " the
writer of the story of the gentleness of Christ." If women
have understood Christ often better than men, it is in part
due to Luke s representation of Christ s interest in women.
Christ has enfranchised women in the true sense of spiritual
privilege and prowess and service. They are entering into
their heritage after centuries of indifference and hostility.
But the women were last at the cross and first at the tomb.
They have been loyal to Christ through the ages.

7. In Touch with Children. The good physician loves chil
dren and seeks to save the child from death and from disaster.
1 Ps. Clem., xii. 2 Carpenter, op. cit., p. 217.

A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE 239

The hope of the race is in the children. The real wealth of the
world is in the children, who give promise of being better and
of doing better than we have been and have done. Hayes
observes that there is not a child in the Gospel of John, but
that is not quite true, for Andrew tells Jesus of the lad with
five barley loaves and two fishes (John 6:8f.). Mark and
Matthew both tell of the little children that were brought to
Jesus, but Luke notes that they were "babes" (Luke 18 : 15).
Luke alone gives the raising of the son of the widow of Nain
(Luke 7), and Luke notes that the epileptic boy was the
father s "only son" (9:38). Luke tells us most about the
birth and childhood of Jesus, and gives us the only glimpse
that we have of the boy Jesus, with a boy s hunger for knowl
edge and yearning for future service, this boy who already had
the consciousness of peculiar relationship to God his Father,
and yet who went back to Nazareth in obedience to Joseph
and Mary to toil at the carpenter s bench for eighteen more
years, till the voice of the Baptist should call him to the Jor
dan. No one who did not love and understand children could
have so graphically pictured the boyhood of Jesus in this one
short paragraph.

8. Spiritual Insight. Luke s Gospel makes a point of prayer
in the life of Jesus. He gives the example of Jesus and the
instruction of Jesus on the subject. The Synoptic Gospels all
tell of Christ s praying in Gethsemane. Luke 1 does not men
tion the praying of Jesus given in Mark 1 : 35 at Capernaum
and in Matt. 19:23 (= Mark 6: 46) after feeding the five
thousand. But Luke alone notes that Jesus prayed at the
baptism of Jesus (3 : 21), on his first clash with the Pharisees
over forgiving the paralytic (5 : 16), before choosing the Twelve
Apostles (6 : 12), before the first prediction of his death (9 : 18),
at the transfiguration (9 : 18), before teaching the model prayer
(11 :!), on the cross (23 : 34, 46). Besides, as Plummer 2 fur
ther points out, Luke alone mentions Christ s special prayer
for Peter (22 : 31 f.), the special command to the disciples to
pray while in Gethsemane (22 : 32, 40) . Luke alone gives the
parables about persistence in prayer (11:5-13; 18:1-8) and
the command to pray "at every season" (21 : 36). The para
ble of the Pharisee and the publican shows the difference be
tween real and perfunctory (and hypocritical) prayer

1 Plummer, Cowm., p. xlv. 2 Ibid.

240 LUKE THE HISTORIAN

(18 : 11-13). Plummets summary proves the point up to the
hilt. Luke was himself a man of prayer, because of his interest
in this aspect of Christ, who practised what he preached
(11:9). "If the disciples of Jesus had learned to pray as
their Master prayed, their victory would have been as sure
and as continuous as his own." l

Luke s Gospel is not only the Gospel of Prayer, but also the
Gospel of Praise. Plummer 2 notes that it begins and ends
with worship in the temple (1:9; 24 : 53). Luke alone gives
the Greeting of Elizabeth (1 : 42-45), the Magnificat, or Song
of Mary the Mother of Jesus (1 : 46-55), the Benedictw, or
Song of Zacharias (1 : 68-79), the Gloria in Excelsis, or Song
of the Angels (2 : 14), the Nunc Dimittis, or Song of Simeon
(2:29-32). Luke is fond of the expression "glorifying God"
(2 : 20; 5 : 25 f.; 7 : 16; 13 : 13; 17 : 15; 18 : 43), "praising God"
(2:13, 20; 19:37; 24:53?; Acts 2:47; 3:8f.) and "blessing
God" (1:64; 2:28; 24:53?).

So also it is the Gospel of Joy. Rejoicing is mentioned by
verb or substantive twenty-two times in the Gospel and the
Acts. All through the Gospel and the Acts there rings the
note of praise and joy. The hymns in Luke s Gospel have
thrilled the heart of the world. The Magnificat "is the highest
specimen of the subtle influence of the song of purity, so ex
quisitely described by Browning. It is the Pippa Passes
among the liturgies of the world." 3

Luke is fond of the ministry of angels. They are common
in the Gospel and in the Acts, where they are mentioned
twenty-two times. "Here and there throughout the Gospel
we hear echoes of angel songs and catch glimpses of angel
wings." 4 To be sure, some would term this trait superstition
and lack of the scientific and the historical spirit. But that is
a superficial attitude toward the deepest problem of humanity.
The nineteenth century saw a recrudescence of materialism
under the influence of the evolution hypothesis. But this very
hypothesis now knocks at the door of the unseen and refuses
to be satisfied with the negation of Mill and Huxley and
Spencer and Haeckel. Wistfully scientists of the twentieth
century are looking over the brim of eternity, if haply they

1 Hayes, op. tit., p. 259. 2 Comm., p. xlvi.

8 Alexander, Leading Ideas of the Gospels, p. 1 14.
4 Hayes, op. tit., p. 264.

A BROAD OUTLOOK ON LIFE 241

may catch echoes from the other side. The wall seems thin
at times to those who have loved ones who have passed over
to be with Jesus.

Luke was a mystic, as every real Christian is. Scientist as
he was, he had not lost his sense of wonder and awe in the
presence of God and nature. He found in Christ the key to
the mystery of life here and hereafter. Like McKenna (The
Adventure of Death), another Christian physician of to-day
who looked to Christ with a scientist s eyes from the trenches
of France and Flanders, Luke saw in Christ the hope of the
world. He gave himself with utter devotion to the task
of recording the results of his years of research and of experi
ence of Christ in his own life and in the lives of others. He
wrote with whole-hearted consecration of his great gifts and
with high standards before his eyes. He set his eyes upon
Jesus, who alone makes life worth while. A man without
spiritual insight has missed the meaning of his own life and
the meaning of the world. Luke had the eyes of his mind
opened (Luke 24:45) by the vision of Jesus which he saw.
He saw Christ and he saw the world for which Christ died.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Abraham 187 Ananias, the high priest 202, 221

Achaia 28, 29, 175, 182, 195 Anna . 104, 238

Acts of the Apostles: Importance Annas 234

of , 1 ff ; author same as that of Antioch in Pisidia 21, 23, 128, 183,

Gospel of Luke, 4 ff., 30, a com- 184, 187, 192, 195, 228, 229

panion of Paul, 6 ff., a physician, Antioch in Syria ... 5, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22,

9 ff 27 ff , 65 f., 90 ff., 131 ff., 23, 24, 56, 76, 86, 174 f., 183

Luke. 13 ff., 30 f., 52, 55; Paul s Antony, Mark 167

influence in, 29, 77, 80 ff.; date Apocryphal Gospels 45, 49, 142, 104

of composition, 30 ff., 82; opti- Apollos 17, 24, 235

mistic note of, 35, 36, 165; place Apostles, the Twelve 46, 49, 82, 98,

of composition, 37, 38. 80; pic- 105, 110, 144, 172, 174 ff., 200, 223

ture of Christ in, 38; historical Appian 121

worth of, 39 ff., 46, 56, 77 f., 89; Aquila 13, 175, 235

literary method of author, 43 ; Arabic Gospel of the Infancy 104

chronological order of, 53, 54; Aramaic Document of Acts. 37, 84, 86 ff.

character portraits in, 57, 234 f. ; Aramaic Sources of Luke ..7,9, 18, 57,

versatility of author, 57 f. ; "we 107

sections, 5, 7, 8, 14, 16, 25, 46, Archelaus (see Herod Archelaus).

78 ff., 87, 134; sources oral and Aretaeus 9, 24, 94

written, 48, 76 ff., 219 ff.; sup- Aristarchus . . 12, 13, 18, 26, 81, 83, 199,

posed Aramaic Document of, 37, 210, 235

77, 84, 86 ff. ; first century at- Asia 29, 182

mosphere of, 78; personal expe- Asia Minor 40, 78, 124, 129, 179 f.,

riences of author, 78 ff., 228; un- 183, 187, 191

fairly treated by critics, 77, 79; Asiarchs 188, 198 f.

in relation to the Epistles of Paul, Assos 206

82 f. ; first-hand reporters for, Athenseus 24

83 ff. ; medical matters in, 98 ff ., Athenodorus 25

133 ff. ; crowns Jesus king, 164 f. ; Athens. . 24, 25, 81, 184, 188, 197 f., 206,

chronology with respect to 226,228,229

Paul s visit to Jerusalem, 171 ff., Augustine 143, 148

death of Herod Agrippa, 174 f., Augustus 119-124, 129, 157, 166 ff.

expulsion of Jews from Rome,

175, Gallio s proconsulship, Babylon 66

175 f., coming of Festus, 176 ff. ; Bar-Jesus 234

archaeological and geographical Barnabas 1,5, 21, 23, 24, 26, 83. 84,

accuracy with reference to 174 f., 193, 234

Roman provinces, 180 ff., ethno- Baur 27, 167, 227

graphic terminology, 182 f., col- Bernice 204, 235, 238

onies, 183 ff., Roman citizenship, Berosa 197, 198, 206, 228

185 f ., local color, 186 ff . ; chapter Bethlehem of Galilee 120

27 its value, 206 ff., its accu- Bethlehem of Judea 104, 106, 109.

racy, 208 f., dominated by Paul s 118, 120. 125

personality, 209 ff., its language, Bethsaida Julias 140

211 ff., 213 ff.; report of speeches Bithynia 28, 29, 182

of Peter, 220 ff . ; speech of Ste- Borghesi 128

phen, 222 ff. ; speech of James, Briggs 76

224 f . ; speeches of Paul, 225 ff . Broughton 109

Adam 157 Bunyan 147

JEgae 24 Burrhus 177

^Emilius Secundus 128

yEneas 100 Csesarea 22, 38, 39, 45, 47, 53, 75, 77,

^Eneid 18 78, 80, 83, 84, 107, 113, 177 f., 181.

/Eschylus 207 202 ff., 206, 228

yEsculapius 24 Caiaphas 160, 234

Africa 28 Cappadocia 182

Agabus 174, 235 Caria 88

Alexander, the procurator 174 Catiline 44

Alexandria 24, 25, 28, 92, 222 Celcus 19

Alford 34 Cenchreee 206

Amphipolis 184 Census in Luke 118 ff.

Ananias of Damascus 234 Cerinthian Gnosticism 116, 158

Ananias of Jerusalem 99, 234 (see also 111)

243

244

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Cesnola 182

China 96, 12O

Chuza 65, 75

Cicero 44, 217

Cilicia 181, 182, 222

Clauda 209

Claudius 170, 174 ff.

Claudius Lysias 185, 201, 230, 235

Clemen 7, 8, 11, 76

Clement of Alexandria. . . 14, 122 f., 147

" Clementines" 21

Cleophas 2O

Codex Bezae 21, 25, 26, 83. 158

Colossians, Epistle to the 38, 82

Constantinople 56

Corinth 27, 37, 81, 175 f., 177, 184,

194 f., 226, 228

I Corinthians 82

II Corinthians 21, 82, 173

Cornelius 84, 193, 221, 233, 235

Credner 7

Crescens 13, 29

Crete 182, 210, 222

Crispus 194

Cuspius Fadus 170

Cyprus 25, 49, 182, 206

Cyrene 25. 182

Dalmatia 28

Damaris 238

Dante 238

Darwin 154

David 156

Delphi 175 f.

Demas 13, 18, 29, 83

Demetrius 120, 188, 199. 235

Demosthenes 51. 217

Derbe 183

De Rossi 128

De Wette 6, 7

Diana, worship of 120, 188, 199

Dio Cassius 217

Dion of Prusa 90

Dionysius 198

Dioscorides. . .9, 24, 42, 96, 99, 100. 101

Docetics 112

Domitian 29, 34

Dorcas 235

Drusilla 235, 238

Ebionitism 236 (see also 111)

Ebrard 34

Ecclesiastes 49

Eckert 167

Egypt. . .70. 123, 124, 125, 126. 129, 182

Einstein 115

Elizabeth. . .58, 103, 104, 108, 109, 157,

238

Elymas 100

Emmaus 58

Emperor worship 188, 197 ff.

Enoch, Book of 162 f.

Epaphras 18, 83

Ephesians, Epistle to the 38, 82

Ephesus . . .35, 37, 81, 98, 177. 184. 188,
198 f., 206

Epicureans 188. 197, 229

Erasistratus 92

Erastus 83. 235

Eudoxia 57

Euthalius 22

Eutychus 101, 135

Ezekiel 163

Ezra ,,,,,,,,,,.,. 50

Fair Havens 210, 213

Famine in Judea 174 f.

Farrar 34

Felix. . . 177 f., 181, 186, 196, 202 f., 204,
228, 235

Festus . . .176ff., 181, 186, 195, 203 f..
228, 230, 235

Figgis 85

Foster 143

Gabriel ... . . 104, 112, 117, 156 f.

Gadera 139 f.

Gaderene demoniac 94, 139

Gaius 83, 188, 199

Galatia 13, 26, 27, 128, 182, 183, 228

Galatians, Epistle to the 82, 229

Galen. . .9, 10, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100,
101, 131, 154

Galilee 95, 140, 181, 200

Galileo 115

Gallia 28

Gallio. . . 19, 20, 175 f., 182, 194 f., 202,
232, 235

Gamaliel 32, 170, 200, 232, 234

Gardthausen 118

Gerasa 139 f.

GfSrer 167

Gladstone 139, 155

Gloag 34

Gnostic controversy 81

God the Father. . 112, 114, 115, 117, 130,
132 f., 136, 137, 138 f., 157 ff., 196, 211

Goethe 136

Greece 66

Greek law 190 ff.

Greek manuscripts 160, 172

Gregory Nazianzen 29

Grenfell 29, 142

Hadrian f. 193

Haeckel 240

Harvey 92

Hausrath 7

Hebrews, Epistle to the 24

Hebrews, Gospel according to .... 69

Herod Agrippa I. .32, 99, 174 f.. 177,

178, 181, 235

Herod Agrippa II ... 178, 186, 200, 204,
228, 230, 235

Herod Antipas 65, 75, 109, 181

Herod Archelaus 109, 124, 147, 181

Herod Philip 181

Herod the Great 109, 121, 123. 124,

126, 128, 181, 207

Herodotus 18, 42, 86, 217 f., 219

Herophilus 92

Hilgenfeld 7, 167

Hippocrates 9, 10, 42, 91, 93, 96,

97, 98, 101, 131, 154

Hofmann 18

Holtzmann 167

Holy Spirit, the. . .81, 85, 86, 104, 111,

112, 113, 115, 134, 144, 156 f., 158,

164 f.

Horace 5

Hume . 136

Huxley 136, 139, 140, 240

Hyslop 136

Iconium 183, 193

India 120

Inscriptions 17, 128, 157. 168, 175 f.

182, 187, 188, 193, 199
Irenseus 14, 29, 50

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

245

194

Italy 28,175

Iturea 181

Jacob 187

Jairus s daughter 94

James, son of Zebedee. . .26 ff., 35, 82,
172, 174, 181, 200, 220, 224, 234

James, the Epistle of 225

James, the Lord s brother 49, 75 f.,

84, 234

Jason 196

Jerusalem 25, 28, 34, 35, 37, 49, 53,

57, 74, 76, 78, 80 ff., 86, 98, 141, 149,
162, 171 ff., 176 f., 200 f., 228
Jerusalem conference. . . .81, 82, 172 f.,
176, 221, 224 f.

Jesus Christ: Virgin Birth, 103 ff.;
place of birth, 120, 125; date of
birth, 124; loneliness, 60; sin-
lessness, 117; transfiguration,
149, 160; stay in the tomb, 168 f. ;
resurrection, 36, 85, 86, 113, 134,
140, 149, 153; ascension, 136,
149; as seen and loved by Luke,
29, 38, 54, 57, 59, 92, 93, 95 ff.,
110, 133, 137 f., 141. 155 ff., 241;
as pictured by Logia, Mark,
Matthew, Luke, Paul, and John
the same, 72, 155; as seen by
Paul, 81, 85; as seen by Stephen,
233; the Jesus or Christ contro
versy, 153 ff . ; Son of God, 155 ff . ;
Son of Man, 161 ff.; Saviour of

Keil 34

Keim 167

Khersa 139

Kingdom of God. . .81, 95, 144, 146, 149

Knopf 7

Koetsweld 149

Koin6 . .5, 17, 18, 36, 42, 58, 61, 144, 183

Lange 34

Livy 217

Loeb 115

Logia (Q) . .39. 44, 45, 46, 58, 69 ff., 77,
110, 116, 118, 135 f., 153, 155

Lucan 19

Lucanus 20

Lucian 11, 90, 91, 207

Luke: His name, 16 ff.; a Gentile,
probably a Greek, 18 f., 180 f.; a
possible freedman, 19 f . ; possibly
a brother of Titus, 20 f . ; birth
place, 21 ff.; education, 23 ff.;
conversion, 25 ff. : medical mis
sionary, 27 ff . ; Paul s companion,
friend, and admirer, 1, 6ff., 29, 39,
46, 78 ff., 83, 209 ff., 235; physi
cian, 9ff., 13, 24, 27 ff., 65 f., 85,
90 ff.. 102, 104, 106. 109. 131 ff..
231, 236, 241: traditions as to
death, 29; personality, 56 ff.; in
terest in the supernatural, 52, 85,
103 ff., 130 ff., 240: interest in
eschatology, 149; cosmopolitan,
46, 155, 232 ff. ; friend of women,

65 f., 75, 108, 111, 237 f.; interest

sinners, 163f.; great humani- in children, 238 f.: sympathy

tarian, 163 ; Captain of our sal- with sinners, 235 f . ; sympathy

vation, 164 f.: Lord of all, 137, with poor, 236 f.; spiritual in-

138 f., 140 f.; most tremendous sight, 239 ff.; understanding of

fact in history, 116, 133; his and consecration to Jesus Christ,

miracles, 96, 130 ff., 135 ff.; the 60, 92, 241; faces the Jesus or

Great Physician, 28, 92, 93, 95 ff., Christ controversy, 153 ff.; his

133, 137 f., 141; his parables picture of Christ not theological

their beauty, 142 f., reason for but historic, 155; his conception

using, 143 f., meaning of, 145 ff., of Jesus as Son of God, 155 ff..

interpretation of, 148; his lit- Son of Man, 161 ff.. Saviour of

erary style, 60 sinners, 163 f., Captain of our

Jesus Justus 18 salvation, 164 f. ; interest in Jesus

Jewish law 49, 190 ff., 200 f. the Physician, 92, 93, 95 ff., 133,

Jews 49, 111, 121, 124, 127, 158, 175 137 f., 141; knowledge of first-
Joanna 65, 75, 109 century details, 31 ; contempo-

John, Gospel of 74, 90, 105, 112, rary of events, 46 ff.; literary

115, 134, 155 f., 158, 160 man, 18, 23 ff., 42{ff., 58, 142 f.,

John, the Apostle 82, 105, 134, 172, 150 f., 211 ff.; man of science,

232, 234 130 ff . : appreciation of music and

John the Baptist. .51, 66. 103, 107, 112, poetry, 58. 240: understanding of

135 f., 158, 166 ff., 239 Roman law, 190 ff., of nautical

Jonah 211 matters, 206 ff. ; reveals own

Joppa 83 personality, 56 ff., 62; portrait-
Joseph, husband of Mary. . .30, 31, 32, painter, 56 ff,. 234 f.; master of
65, 103, 108, 109, 110 f., 112, 120, 125, style, 57 ff., 68; Hebraisms in
126 f., 158, 162 writings, 64; at work as a his-

Joseph, son of Jacob 187 torian, 50 ff. : versatility, 57 f.,

Judaism.. 25, 26, 104, 182, 194 f., 205, 231 f.; author of Gospel and

224 Acts, 4 ff . ; date of writing Acts.

Judaizing controversy 81, 140, 171, 31 ff.; use of oral and written

224 f. sources, 76 ff . ; consultations with

Judas Barsabbas 234 Paul, 80 ff. ; use of Paul s Epis-

Judas Iscariot 69,220 ties, 82 f.; other first-hand re-
Judas Maccabeus 61 porters, 83 ff. ; use of Josephus,

Judas of Damascus 234 31 ff.; date of writing Gospel,

Judas the Galilean 32,127,169 37 ff.; stimulated by work of

Judea, 39, 47, 55,{95, 124, 174 f.. 181. 182 others, 44 ff . ; interest in full life

Julia Augusta 168 of Jesus, 45, 47 f.; method and

Julius, the centurion 210, 233, 235 object, 42 ff., 50 ff., 63, 66; order-

Jtingst 29, 76 liness, 53 f.; use of early docu-

246

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Luke Continued

ments for Gospel, 44 f., 49 f.,
63 fl., 66 ff., 60 flf., 72 ft. , use
of oral testimony for Gospel,
48 flf., 74; assimilation of sources,
61 flf.; account of the Virgin
Birth vital to his history,
103 flf., believed by himself,
106 flf., based on reliable evi
dence, 108 flf., why given, 110 flf.;
account of the miracles of Jesus,
130 flf., 135; eyewitness of the
miracles of Paul, 133 flf.; his ac
curacy in general, 46 flf., 50 fl.,
55 f., 64, concerning the cen
sus of Luke 2 : 1 ff., 120 ff., in
chronology, 166 ff., in archae
ological and geographical details,
179 ff., in the narrative of Acts
27, 208 f . ; historical worth of
Lukan writings, 39 ff., 46; their
importance, 1 ff.

Luke, Gospel of: Importance of.
Iff.; identity of author, 4ff..
6 ff., 9 ff., 12 ff., 30, 31, 52; cul&gt;
ture of author, 18 ff., 23 ff.,
42 ff., 21 Iff.; Pauline influence
in, 29, 74, 81 ; date of, 30 f., 33 f.,
37 ff. ; climax of, 36; prologue, 38,
42 ff.; historical worth, 39 ff.;
author s method and object,
42 ff., 44 f., 50 ff., 63, 66; literary
beauty, 43, 62; orderly arrange
ment of material, 53 f . ; com
pleteness and charm, 43, 54;
bears stamp of author s person
ality, 56 f., 62; pen portraits,
67 ff., 234 f.; poetry in, 58, 240;
sources written documents, in
general, 44 ff., 49 ff., 61 ff.,
72 ff.; oral testimony, 48 f., 50,
61, 72 ff.; sources assimilated,
61 ff . ; Semitic sources, 63 ff . ;
Mark as a source, 38 f., 66 ff.;
Matthew as a source, 70; Logia
as a source, 69 ff.; Great In
terpolation, 68, 73; one author,
78; medical terms used, 90 ff.;
changes from Mark s account,
92 ff . ; items of medical interest
peculiar to Luke, 95 ff . ; account
of birth of Jesus vital to Luke s
history, 103 ff., author s belief in
it, 106 ff., based on reliable evi
dence, 108 ff., why told, 110 ff..
credible to-day, 113ff., most
satisfactory explanation of
Christ, 116 f.; account of census
crucial, 118f., two Bethle-
hems, 120, "the whole world,"
120; the account trustworthy
as to date, 121 ff., as to enrol
ment by households, 124 ff., as
to Quirinius, 127 ff. ; account of
miracles miracles in Q and
Mark, 135 ff., in Luke alone,

137 f.; miracles over nature,

138 ff. ; account of parables
their beauty, 142 f., why Christ
used them, 142 ff., their mean
ing, 145 ff., their interpretation,
148 f., Luke s special contribu
tion, 149 ff. ; picture of Jesus as
Son of God, 155 ff., as Son of
Man, 161 ff., as Saviour of sin

ners, 163 f., as Captain of our
salvation, 164 f., as the Great
Physician. 93, 95 ff., 137 f.;
nearest approach to a biography,
54; chronology in the matter of
beginning of John s ministry,
166 ff., length of Christ s stay in
the tomb, 168 f., Theudas,
169 ff. ; gospel of human sym
pathy, 233 f., 235 ff.; gospel of
sacrifice, 57, 236; gospel of joy
and praise, 165, 240; emphasis
on prayer, 239 f.

Lumby 34

Lycaonia 183

Lycia 182

Lycius of Gyrene 83

Lydda 83

Lydia 238

Lysanias 32, 166, 167, 168

Lysias 217

Lystra 100, 183, 184, 187, 193 f.,

228, 229

I Maccabees 61

II Maccabees 222

Macedonia. . .27, 28, 111, 177, 182, 184,

188, 206

Maclaren 56

Maecenas 5

Malalas 121

Malchus 94, 96, 97, 131

Malta. .9, 10, 18, 27, 101, 187, 209, 211

Manaen 75, 83, 220

Marcion 26, 30, 64

Mark, Gospel of. .3, 10, 12. 33, 38 f..

45 f., 53, 66 ff., 70 ff., 72, 73, 74, 75.

77, 87, 90, 112. 116, 118.J120, 134,

136, 150, 153, 175

Mark, John 13, 18, 26, 29, 49. 83 f.,

106, 220, 234

Martha 59, 238

Mary Magdalene 236

Mary, mother of Jesus. .49, 57 ff., 64 ff.,

103 ff., 116 f., 120, 125 ff., 151, 156 ff.,

161 f., 238

Mary, mother of Mark 49, 238

Mary, of Bethany 59, 236, 238

Matthew 105, 135

Matthew, Gospel of. .33, 39, 45, 53, 62.

65, 66 ff., 69 ff., 90, 105 f., 108, 110 ff.,

115f., 120, 150, 155

Meyer 104

Miletus 226, 228

Mill 240

Mithraism 194

Mnason 49, 83

Mommsen 118, 128

Muratorian Canon 14, 25

Mythology 114, 187

Nathan 156

Nazareth 95, 109, 120. 125

Neapolis 206

Nero 29.204

New Testament. .49, 51, 56, 58, 77, 86,
96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 105, 115, 147, 190

Newton 115

Nicolas 22

Nicolaus of Damascus 121

Nicoll 142

Old Testament, 34, 62/69, 114, 143, 156

Onesiphorus 29

Oosterzee 34, 233

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

247

Origen 12, 21, 147

Osier 92

Overbeck 7, 8

Ovid 187

Palestine. .26, 47, 54, 77, 107, 108, 121,
122, 124, 126, 174, 181, 187, 202 ff.

Pamphylia 182

Papias 53, 69, 75

Papyri. .5, 17, 43, 50, 69, 88, 122, 123 f.,
129, 157, 158, 188

Parthia 120

Paul: Luke s subject and hero, 1,
29, 46, 209 ff., 235; world of, 2;
possible schoolmate of The-
ophilus, 5; and the author of
Acts, 6ff., 9ff., 12 ff., 27 ff.,
78 ff.; freeborn, 20; at Antioch
in Syria, 2; meeting Luke, 23,
27; at Tarsus, 24 f.; agent in
Luke s conversion, 25 ff.; pris
oner and martyr, 29, 35 f., 39;
conversion, 100; and contribu
tion for the poor, 174 f. ; knowl
edge of the life of Christ, 74, 85,
112f.; Luke s informant, 80 ff.,
84; on Malta, 101 f.; miracles
of, 101 f., 133 ff.; at Corinth,
175 f., 194 f. ; his Roman citizen
ship, 185 f., 201; on side of law
and order, 191; at Antioch in
Pisidia, 192 f.; at Philippi, 191;
at Lystra, 193 f . ; at Thessa-
lonica, 195 ff.; at Athens, 197 f.;
at Ephesus, 198 f . ; and Jewish
law, 200 f. ; and Jewish mob,
200 f . ; before Roman officials in
Palestine, 202 ff . ; a sea traveller,
206 ff . ; his personality dominant
in Acts 27, 209 ff . ; and Stephen,
223 f.; his speeches, 48, 225 ff.
(see also 30, 32, 38, 47, 49, 73,
74, 76, 81, 98, 101, 120, 140, 165)
Paul, Epistles of. . 1, 3, 8, 12, 16, 18, 29,
30 f., 38, 76, 77, 82, 134, 176, 219, 221,
226 f.

Pella 37

Pentecost. .84, 85, 86, 134, 149, 164, 220

Pergamos 92

Perfcles 217

" Period oi of Barnabas" 207

Peter. .1, 29, 30, 35, 39, 46, 48, 53, 76,
84, 86, 97, 134, 140, 172, 174, 181,
200, 220 ff., 223 f., 234 f.

I Peter 35,221

II Peter 221

Pharisees, the . 143 f., 145, 146, 148, 159,

200, 223, 233

Philemon, Epistle to 38, 82, 204

Philip, the disciple 21

Philip, the evangelist. .49, 75, 84, 86,

220, 222, 234

Philippi .. 19, 22, 23, 27, 78, 80, 178,
183 f., 186, 187 f., 192, 206, 228

Philistia 84

Philo 36, 112, 147, 222

Phoenicia 181, 182

Phoenix 210, 213

Phyrigia 183

Pilate 75, 181, 195, 196, 202

Pisidia 183

Plato 58, 131

Pliny... 77,205

Plutarch 5, 30, 50, 57, 60, 135, 195

Polybius 5, 42, 51, 217

Pontus 182

"Praefatio Lucee" 22, 26, 28

Priscilla 13, 17, 175, 235, 238

Protevangelium of James 104

Pseudo-Matthew 104

Ptolemais 184

Publius 10, 101, 102, 135, 187

Puteoli 184

Quirinius 118, 120, 123, 127 ff.,

166 f., 169 f.

Renan 4, 22

Rendall 34

Resch 34

Roman citizenship 185 f., 201

Roman colonies 183 ff., 192 ff.

Roman Empire. .30, 76, 77 f., 120, 121,
122, 123, 165, 181, 183, 190 ff.

Roman law 190 ff.

Roman provinces 180 ff.

Romans, Epistle to the 82, 173

Rome. .19, 22, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37,

38, 39, 67, 71, 78, 80, 81, 82, 84, 120,

121, 123. 175, 184, 207, 228

Sadducees 200, 223, 233

Saint Cyril 98

Sallust 218, 219

Samaria 84, 174, 181, 200

Sanhedrin 160, 200 f., 221

Sapphira 221, 234, 238

Savonarola 34

Schaff 34

Schiller 116

Scholten 6

Sea of Adria 213

Sea of Galilee 140

Secundus 188

Selucia 206

Seneca 19, 20, 25, 195

Sentius Saterninus 129

Septuagint. .32, 63, 64, 72, 88, 96, 100,
157, 232

Sergius Paulus 182, 235

Servilius 128

Shechem 187

Silas 13, 17, 19, 26, 27, 81, 83, 135,

186, 196 f., 221, 234
Silvanus (see Silas)

Simeon 58, 144, 157 f.

Simon Magus 234

Sinaitic Syriac Ill, 115, 126

Socrates 197

Sopater 83

Sorof 76

Sosipater 188

Sosthenes 194 f.

Spencer 240

Spitta 7,76

Stephen. . .29, 35, 187, 200, 222 ff., 235

Stoics 112, 188, 197 f., 229

Strabo 24, 25, 121, 179

Strauss 167

Syltems 121

Synoptic Gospels. . .62 f., 112, 144, 158,

233

Syracuse 184

Syria. . . 118, 122, 124, 128, 129, 181, 182
Syrtis 213

Tacitus 217 ff.

Talmud 109, 143, 222

Tarsus 18, 24 f., 27, 184, 185

Tertullus 190, 202, 230, 235

243

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

"Testimonia" 62, 69

Theodora Lector 56

Theophilus. .4f., 8, 12, 2O, 21. 24, 25,

38,45,54,55,111

Theophylact 20

I Thessalonians 82, 176

II Thessalonians 82, 176

Thessalonica. .81, 120, 184, 188, 195 ff..

198, 228

Theudas 32, 169 ff., 178

Tholuck 34

Thomas, Gospel of 104

Thucydides, 4, 18, 32, 39, 42, 217 f., 227

Tiberius 33, 123, 166 f.

Tiele 18

Timothy. . .7, 13, 26, 27, 29, 81, 83, 194,

235

I Timothy 29

Titus 12 f., 20 f., 22, 29, 81, 83, 171

Titus, Flavius S. V 33 f., 167

Titus Justus 13

Trachonitis 167, 181

Trajan 77, 205

Troas 13, 23, 78, 80, 184, 206

Trophimus 13, 83, 200, 235

Ttibingen school 1, 40, 191

Tychicus 83

Tyndale 47

Varus 129

Vespasian 123

Vibius Maximus 125

Virgil 63

Vulgate 51

Warfield . 134

Wellhausen 63, 97

Wells 163

Wendt 7, 70

Westcott 49

Whitsitt 131

Widow of Nain 96, 137 f., 238

Wieseler 34

Wittichen 18

Xenophon 80, 179, 217

Zacchaeus 59

Zacharias 58, 59, 64, 103 f.

Zenos 190

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS
REFERRED TO

Abbott, " The Son of Man" 162

Abbott-Smith, "Manual Lexicon
of the Greek N. T." 43

"^Egyptische Urkunden aus den
Koeniglichen Museen zu Ber
lin," 43 (see Index of Scripture
and Papyri)

Alexander, "Leading Ideas of the
Gospels" 240

Allen, "Oxford Studies in the Sy
noptic Problem " 64, 71

Angus, "Int. St. B. Encycl."
(" Roman Empire") 205

Aristotle, "Rhetoric," 99 (see also
92, 131)

Arnold, "Literature and Dogma" 105

Bacon, "American Journal of The
ology," 89 (see also 219)

Ball, " God and Our Soldiers " 115

, "St. Paul and the Roman

Law" (1901) 191

Balmer, "Die Romfahrt des Apo-

stels Paulus" (1905) 208

Barrett, " On the Threshold of the

Unseen" 116

Bartlet, "Apostolic Age" 36, 172

, "Oxford Studies in the Sy
noptic Problem" ... .64, 71, 72

, " Standard Bible Dictionary"

("Acts") 36

Baur, "Paul," 1 (see also 2, 7, 227)
Bebb, Hastings "D. B." ("Luke

the Evangelist") 25, 67

Belser, "Theol. Quartalschrift,

Ttibingen " (1895-1896) 32

Bethge, " Die paulinischen Reden"

225, 226

"Biblical Review" 42, 118

Bigg, "Commentary" 221

Biggs, " St. Peter and Jude" 200

Birt, "Die Burchrolle in der

Kunst" 63

Blass, " Acta Apostolorum" 21, 79, 220

, "Die Rhythmen der asia-

nischen und rOmischen

Kunstprosa" 58

, " Philosophy of the Gospels " . . 21,

30, 34, 35, 42 f., 44, 47, 49, 50,
51, 53, 55. 87

Boeckh, "Corp. Inscr. Gr." 168

Box, " The Virgin Birth of Jesus ". . 105
Breusing, "Die Nautik der Alten"

(1886) 208

Broadus, "Commentary on Mat
thew" 148

, "Harmony of the Gospels". .74,

149, 168

Bruce, "Apologetics" 117

, "Expositor s Greek Testa
ment" . . .44, 45, 47, 51, 52, 103

, "Parabolic Teaching of

Christ" 149

Burkitt, "Gospel History and Its

Transmission" 14, 32, 62 f.

, "Journal of Theological

Studies" 88, 89

Burton, "American Journal of

Theology" 188

, " Some Principles of Literary

Criticism and Their Ap
plication to the Synoptic

Problem" 73

Buss, "Roman Law and History
in the N. T." (1901) 191

Cadbury, "The Style and Literary
Method of Luke r (1919). . . .6, 11,91

, "The Treatment of Sources

in the Gospels" 68

Carpenter, "Christianity Accord
ing to S. Luke". . .4, 13, 23, 58 f., 60,
68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 79, 81, 84, 85, 105,
114, 115 f., 126, 132, 133, 140, 149,
150 f., 167 f., 233 f., 236, 237, 238
Chase, "The Credibility of the
Book of the Acts of the Apos
tles" . .4, 10, 11, 38, 39, 54, 76, 80, 227
Chesterton, "Hibbert Journal". . . 233

, " Orthodoxy" 60

"Christian Worker s Magazine". . 130
Chrysostom, "Horn, on Matt.

64:3," 148 (see also 21, 180)
Clemen, "Die Chronologic der
paulin. Briefe" (1893), 32 (see
also 7, 8, 76)

, " Hibbert Journal" 11

Cobern, "New Archaeological Dis
coveries and Their Bearing on
theN. T." 43

Dalman, "The Words of Jesua" 64, 65
Davidson, "Introduction to the

New Testament," 8 (see also

219)

Deissmann, "Bible Studies" 43, 88, 157
, "Light from the Ancient

East" 43, 125 f., 237

, "St. Paul" 175

Didon, "Jesus Christ" 157

Edmundson, "The Church in

Rome During the First Century 39
Emmet, "Commentary on Gala-

tians" 172

"Encycl. Biblica" 30, 120, 140

Epiphanius, " Ag. Her." 51

Erbes, Gebhardt and Harnack s

" Texte und Untersuch" 177

Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.". .51, 53, 69 (see

also 3, 21, 22, 23, 47, 177)

249

250 INDEX OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS

Everitt, "St. Paul s Journey to
Rome" (1904) ............ . 208

"Expositor" (1920) ............. 153

Ferguson, "Historical and Lin
guistic Studies of University of
Chicago" .................... 201

Foakes- Jackson, "Harvard The
ological Review " ............. 88

Friedrich, " Das Lukas-Evangelium
und die Apostelgeschichte Werke
desselben Verfasser" (1890). . . 6

Furneaux, " Commentary on Acts "

26, 27, 34, 43, 170

Gardner, "Cambridge Bible Es

says".. 132, 134, 189, 217ff. f 225

226, 227, 231, 232
Garvie, Hastings s "One Vol

D. B." .................... . 130

Gilbert, "Jesus" ............ , , ,[ 138

Glover, "Nature and Purpose of a

Christian Society " ____ ....... 236

- , "The Jesus of History" 151, 154

- , The Meaning and Purpose

of a Christian Society". .
" "

151
36

43
43

Goodspeed, "The Expositor. .
"Greek Papyri in the British Mu

seum," 43 (see Index of Scripture

and Papyri)
Grenfell and Hunt, "Amherst

Papyri" .............

- , " Hibeh Papyri "..... . !

- , "Oxyrhynchus Papyri," 43,

44 (see also Index of Scrip
ture and Papyri)

Grenfell and Hunt and Hogarth,
"Fayum Towns and Their
Papyri," 43 (see also Index of
Scripture and Papyri)
Grierson, Hastings s "One Vol
D -B." ..................... / 107

Harnack , " Chronologie der alt-
christl. Litt." ............ 34

- , " Luke the Physician " ."."3, 5. 7

8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23. 24. 26,
33, 49, 52, 55. 68, 75, 86, 90 f.
92, 98, 101, 131 f., 138, 189

- , Sayings of Jesus" ....... 70, 71

- , The Acts of the Apostles " 8. 10

14 34, 40, 81, 82, 83, 85, 178
180, 205, 234, 235

- , "The Date of the Acts and

the Synoptic Gospels "..8, 12
14, 35, 37 f., 39, 40, 65 f., 70 f.
79, 104 f., 106, 107,114
Hams, " The Expositor " ...... 62

Hase, " Geschichte Jesu" . . 16O

Hasluck, "Journal of Hellenic
Studies" (1912) ......... 17

Hastings "Dictionary of the
Apostolic Church". .14, 18, 31 32
33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 72, 76, 80 f. 82

207 f "214 87&gt; 178 183&gt; 18 * 190 200,

- ."Dictionary of the Bible "..25,

30 36 f., 67, 76, 124, 142, 147
150, 174. 175, 180, 188,222

- , Dictionary of Christ and

the Gospels " ......... 146 147

- , "One Volume Dictionary of

. the Bible "....35, 107, 130, 185
Hawkins, " The Expositor " ...... 74

, "Horae Synopticae" (1911) 3 7
, "Oxford

+
the

and
of Acts ".. 5, 20 21 24

&gt;

Headlam, Hastings s "D B"
("Acts") ...... 30, 36 f., 76, 180 222

^SSST* Journal Supplement for

1909 ......... 1 | A i cr:

Hicks, "Traces of Gre^k" Philos
ophy and Roman Law in the
-N. T. (1896) ....... 191

Hobart, The Medical Language of

(see also 167)
Homan, "Luke the Greek Phy

sician" ...... 01 f -lot

" Homiletic Review " . . . . . . . . . . . 217
"Int. St. Bible Encycl.". .in, 131,205

Jerome, "Commentary on Isaiah" 91

- , "De Viris Illustribus," 22 (see

Jones. "St. Paul ?&?: ?
225, 226, 227 f., 229, 230

- , "The Expositor". .173, 176, 178,

190

- , " The N. T in the Twentieth

Josephus, "Antiquities "..32, 61, 121
124, 127, 167, 169 flf

- , Jewish War" ..... . . .32, 174 f.

- , Vita ........ 206

Julicher, " Die Gleichnisreden Jesu " 147

- . "Einleitung" ......... 39

- , "Introduction to the New

Testament " ............ 2

Kenyon, " Classical Review ". 123
Klostermann, "Handbuch zum

-N. T ................. gg

, " Vindicae Lucanae " (1866) . . 7
Knowlmg " Acts" ........ 99, 187, 210

Krenkel. Josephus und Lukas"

(1894) ....................... 32

Lake, "Earlier Epistles of St
Paul . ... 170 IQC

- , " The Expositor " ! . * {27

- , Hastings s " Dict.of the Aposl

tolic Church" ("Acts of
the Apostles"). .14, 31, 32, 34,
35 f.. 37, 76, 80 f., 82, 83 f., 86.
87. 171

- , Hastings s " Dict.of the Apos-

Lightfoot, "Biblical Essays" 12 177

- , "Commentary on Gala-

tians" .................. 172

- , C9mmentary on Philip-

pians" 20

____

, Essays on Supernatural
Religion

..,

.Smith s "D. B.""("Tne
Acts") ................ 31

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS

251

Lock and Sanday, "Two Lectures
on the Oxyrhynchus Sayings of

Jesus" (1889) 69

Lodge, " Life and Matter 105

Loisy, " Hibbert Journal" 85

, " Les Evangiles Synoptiques

59, 125

Loofs, "What Is the Truth about
Jesus Christ? " ; 6

Luckock, "The Special Character-
istics of the Four Gospels 26, 57

Lummis, " How Luke Was Written 75

Machen, "Princeton Review . . . .
Mackinlay, "A Difficulty Re
moved" (1919) 168

. "The Literary Marvels of St.

Luke" (1919) 54

Maclean, Hastings s "Diet, of the
Apostolic Church" ("Roman

Law in N T/ ) 190.200

, Hastings s "One Vol D B."

("Acts") 35

, Hastings s "One Vol. D. B."

("Paul") 185

Madden. " Coins of the Jews " . . 174
Mayor " Commentary on James " 225
McGiffert, "History of Christi
anity in the Apostolic Age" .... 8. 9
McKenna. "Adventure of Life". . 154

."Ad venture of Death" 241

McLachlan, "St. Luke: the Man
and His Work". . .74, 86. 89, 142, 151

" Methodist Review " 166

Migne. "Patrologia Graeca" 22

Milligan, " Greek Papyri " 43

, "New Testament Docu
ments" 43, 57 f.

Moffatt, "The Expositor" 168

, "Introduction to the Litera
ture of the N. T." ..1,4. 5, 12,
14, 30 f., 38, 42, 46, 57, 64, 65,
76, 80, 83, 87, 180, 187, 219,
220, 221
Mommsen, "The Provinces of the

Roman Empire" 182

Moulton, J. H., " The Expositor". . 70

. " Grammar of N. T. Greek".. 17

Moulton. W. J., Hastings s "Diet.

of Christ and the Gospels" . . 146, 147
Moulton and Milligan, "Vocab
ulary of the N. T/ . .43, 96, 97, 122,
153, 188, 191

Murray, "Four Stages of Greek
Religion" 237

Nachmanson," Beitrage zur Kennt-
nis der altgriechischen Volks-

sprache" 17

Naylor, "The Expositor" 106

, " Hibbert Journal" 91

Nestle, " The Expositor" 87

Nikitsky, " Epigraphical Studies at

Delphi " (1898) 175

Nolloth, "The Rise of the Chris
tian Religion" 39

Norden, " Kunstprosa" 58

Nosgen, " Apostelgeschichte " 170

Orosius, "Adversus Paganos His-

toriarum" 174, 175

Orr, "The Virgin Birth of Christ"

109, 114, 117

Paley, "Horse Paulinas"

Peake, " Introduction to the N. T."
Pfleiderer, "Christian Origins,".. 2

also 7)
Plooij, "De Chronologic van het

leven van Paulus"

, "The Expositor" 173,

Plummer, "Commentary on St.
Luke" .7, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26
32, 33, 34, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 65, 67, 93
125, 126, 127, 156, 157, 159, 160,
167, 231, 239, 240
-, Hastings s " D. B." . . 142, 147

1 19 Plumptre, " Books of the Bible .

83
32

176
190

, 31,

, 51,

97,

161,

,150
20

Rackham, " Commentary on Acts"
20. 23, 24. 26, 27, 35, 36, 56, 59, 170,
171, 193, 196, 198, 199, 206, 208, 210,
211. 222, 223, 225, 234, 235
Ramsay. "The Bearing of Recent
Discovery on the Trustworthi
ness of the N. T." . .2, 16, 17, 19, 20,
40 f, 64, 79, 82, 83, 85, 103, 114,
118 f., 122, 123, 124, 127, 128, 129,
168. 173, 179 f-. 182, 201, 204

. "The Church in the Roman

Empire" (1893). 2, 180, 184, 191

, "The Cities of St. Paul". .2, 18,

24 f.. 180, 183, 185, 187

. "The Expositor ..44, 71,85, 172

. " Galatians " 192, 193

.Hastings s "D. B." ("Asi-

archs") 188

, "The Historical Geography

of Asia Minor" 2, 179

, "Luke the Physician". .2, 3, 10,

22, 71. 98. 101, 111, 114

" Pauline and Other Studies "

2, 3, 8, 77 f., 177 f., 232

, "St. Paul the Traveller and

Roman Citizen". .2, 5, 12, 22,
23, 27, 31, 33, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46,
54, 81. 86, 166, 167, 174, 177,
178. 183, 187. 192. 198. 203,
204, 207. 208. 210, 212, 213,
214, 216, 229

, "Was Christ Born at Beth
lehem? ..2. 53. 55 f.. 64, 65.
103 f., 107, 108, llOf., 112, 119,
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126,
127, 128, 170, 171, 174, 175,
180 f-
" Record of Christian Work, The " . 206

Renan, " Les Evangiles " 43

Robertson, "Bible for Home and

School" 69

, "Contemporary Review" 72, 155

, "The Divinity of Christ in

the Gospel of John" (1916) 155

, "A Grammar of the Greek

N. T. in the Light of His
torical Research" 5, 13, 17,

58, 159

, "The Life and Letters of

John A. Broadus" 50

, "The New Citizenship" 186

, "Practical and Social As
pects of Christianity" 225

, "Studies in Mark s Gospel"

(1919). . . .38, 39, 67, 68, 70, 155
Robinson, Hastings s " Diet, of the

Apostolic Church" ("Ship") 207, 214
, "Some Thoughts on the In
carnation" 104

252

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS

Ropes, " Epistle of James" 225

Rosser, "Paul the Preacher" 229

Round, "The Date of Galatians" 172

Ruskin, "Sesame and Lilies" 52

Salmon, V The Human Element in

the Gospels" 44, 71

Sanday, "Bampton Lectures"

(1893) 170

, "Book by Book" 43

. "Expository Times" 65

, "Oxford Studies in the Sy
noptic Problem" (1911).. 38,
62, 63, 67, 71, 73

, "Sacred Sites of the Gos
pels" 120

Schmiedel, "Enc. Biblica," 30, 140, 219

(see also 7, 227)
Schuerer, "Zeitschrift f. Krit.

Theol." (1876), 170 (see also 7)
Schweitzer, "Paul and His Inter
preters" 1

Selwyn, "St. Luke the Prophet" 13, 17

Smith, " Dictionary of the Bible ". . 31

Smith, E., "Homiletic Review ".. 208,

212,213,214,216

Smith, J., "The Voyage and Ship
wreck of St. Paul" (1880).. 208 f.,
212,214,216

Soltau, "The Virgin Birth" 106

Souter, "Pocket Lexicon of the

Greek N. T." 43

Stalker, "The Beauty of the

Bible," 142 (see also 58, 104)
" Standard Bible Dictionary, The " 36
Stan ton, "The Gospels as Histori
cal Documents" 32, 67, 72, 150

Stawell, " St. Luke and Virgil" ... 19

Stokes, " Gifford Lectures" 105

Stouter, Hastings s "Diet, of the
Apostolic Church " (" Citizen
ship") 185

, Hastings s " Diet of the Apos
tolic Church " (" Colony " ) 183
Streeter, "Oxford Studies".. .70, 71, 73
Suetonius, " Lives of the Caesars " . . 167,

175

" Sunday School Times" 103

"Supernatural Religion" 6, 16

Sweet, "Int. St. Bible Encycl."

("Mary") Ill

Swete, "The Gospel According to
St. Mark" 67

Tacitus, "Annals," 167 (see also 175)
Taylor, " The Oxyrhynchus Logia"

(1899) 7.7.T. 69

, "The Oxyrhynchus Sayings

of Jesus" (1905) 69

Tertullian, "Adv. Marcion," 26, 129
(see also 14)

Torr, "Ancient Ships" (1894) 208

Torrey, "American Journal of The
ology " 89

, "The Composition and Date

of Acts" (1916). .7, 9, 18, 34,
37, 38, 87 f.

, "Studies in the History of

Religions" 87

Trench, "Notes on the Parables ". . 148
Turner, Hastings s"D.B." ("Chro
nology of the N. T.") . . . 124, 174, 175

Usener, "Encycl. Biblica" 120

Vars, "L Art nautique dans 1 an-
tiquitS et specialement en grfcc"
(1887) 208

Viereck, " Philologus" 123

Vigoroux, "Le nouveau Testa
ment" iso

Vogel, "Zur Characteristik des
Lukas nach Sprache und Stil," 6 (see
also 7)

Von Soden, "History of Early
Christian Literature" 2

, "Introduction to the N. T." 80

Wace, "Int. St. Bible Encycl."

(" Miracles") 131, 134

Wainel, " Die Gleichnisse Jesu "... 147
Weiss, B., "Introduction to the
Literature of the N. T.," 70 (see also
7,33)

Weiss, J., " Die Schriften des N. T. ;
das Lucas-Evangelium," 6 (see also 7)

Weizsacker, " Apostolic Age " 2

Wendling, "Die Entstehung des
Marcusevangeliums" (1908).. . . 67

, "Urmarcus" (1905) 67

Whi taker, " The Expositor" 28

Wilcken, "Hermes,* 123 (see 118)
Wilkinson, "A Johannine Docu
ment in the First Chapter of S.

Luke s Gospel " 66

Williams, N. P., "Oxford Studies" 67
Wilson, J. N., "Harvard Theologi
cal Review" 88. 89

Wright, "Gospel According to St.

Luke in Greek" 64 f.

, Hastings s "Diet, of Christ

and the Gospels" 73, 155 f.

Zahn, "Einleitung," 9, 11 (see also 7)
Zenos, Hastings s "Diet, of the
Apostolic Church " (" Dates ") . . 178

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND PAPYRI
QUOTATIONS

A. NEW TESTAMENT

MATTHEW
Chap. 1:16.... Ill,

115

Chap. 3:1 94
Chap. 4 : 10 145
11 . ... 144

Chap. l:65f 66
: 68-79. ... 240
: 80 65

: 18-20

: 12 144

Chap. 2 : 1-7

111,

115

23 145

118, 120, 124,

: 19. ... 108, 127

24 . 145

126, 127, 129,

: 20-25. . . .

108

33 f 144

132

Chap. 2:6

120

35-41 . . . 140

: 1-3

Chap. 3:17

158

: 45-8 : 26 . 67

114,118,128

Chap. 7:6
:13

144

Chap. 5:2 94
13 139

: 1 120
:2-5 118

Chap. 8:2

15 94

: 5-13

136

: 26 10, 93

122, 123, 127,

: 14 f

41 f 94

166

: 23-27....
-.28

140
94

Chap. 6 : 39 f.... 68, 140
: 45-8: 26. 68

: 3 124, 125
:4-7 161

Chap. 9:2

: 46 239

:4 126

: 5 f
: 25
Chap. 10 : 8

66
94
95

Chap. 8 : 29 158
Chap. 9:7 160
17 f 94

:5 125
: 7 236
:8 236

Chap. 11:4-6
: 22

135
109

Chap. 10 : 25 95
34 . 169

: 13 240
: 14 240

: 25-30
:27

156
160

Chap. 13 67
13-14 . 33

: 19 65
: 20 240

Chap. 12 : 10

47 94

:21 65

Chap. 13 149,

150

62 . ... 160

: 23-38. ... 66

13:10
: 11

145
144
144

Chap. 15: 15 196
Chap. 16: 1 169

: 24 236
:26.. .33 157 f.
: 29-32.. . 240

: 34

145

LTJKB

: 32 233

: 36
Chap. 16 : 16

145
145
160

Chaps. 1-4 64
Chaps. 1 and 2.. 18, 57,
64, 65, 86, 103,

: 34 144
: 39 120
:40..65,161,221

: 17

158

107, 161, 219,

:49 115, 158

:18f

156

991 222

: 51-18 : 14 68

Chap. 17 : 5

160
94

Chap. 1

1-4
5 18, 21, 42,

:51 65,109
:52 65, 162

Chap. 19 : 23

239

57, 86, 103,

Chap. 3: 1-3.... 77, 166

: 24

136

: If 33, 166

Chap. 21

150

:1..32,178, 181

Chap. 22
Chap. 24

150
150

44, 47, 49 f.,
55, 72

: 15 33
:21f 159

24: 15

:21 239

Chap. 25
Chap. 26: 51

150
94

48, 49, 55, 78
3

:22
153, 158, 159,

: 63

160

5 42, 44, 45,

160

:63f

115

51 flf 56

:23 166

:64

160

4 4 55

: 38 157

Chap. 28: 1

169

5-2:52. 57, 63

Chap. 4:3-13 75

9 240

:3 158 f.

MARK

26 166

:9 158 f.

Chap. 1:4

158

31-33 104
32 f 156

: 16-30.. 75, 159
:18 236

34 f. 104

: 20 48

30 f

:21 159

239

103, 117, 156

:22 159

42-45 240

:23..90, 95, 145

Chap. 2:3

94
66

43 157
46-55 240

: 40 f. 96
:41 33

253

254

INDEX OF QUOTATIONS

Luke Continued

Chap.

10:

21-24.

... 156

Chap.

19 : 11-27

Chap.

5: 1-11

22. . . .

. . . 160

147, 149,

150

75, 96, 140 :

30-37.

.97,150

149

. .93,97

30. . . .

... 150

:37.. .

240

: 15 f. . .

... 96

. . . 148

: 41-44.. .

162

: 16

... 239

Chap.

11:

... 239

Chap.

20 : 9-19

147

. 94, 100

5-13..

. . . 239

Chap.

21 : 5-36

149

: 19. ...

... 68

5-8. . .

. . . 150

: 8. .

. . . 159

... 148

:20 33 f.

: 23 f . . .

... 66

. . . 240

: 24. ...

... 159

37 f. . .

. .. 58

: 28

: 25 f . . .

. . . 240

Chap.

12:

16-21

: 29-33

: 31 f. . .

... 146

146,

150, 237

146,

149

: 34

... 146

35-48.

. . . 150

:32

: 36-39.

. . . 150

49-53

... 164

: 36

239

Chap.

6:5

... 159

Chap.

13:

6-9. . .

... 150

Chap.

22 : 14-24 : 10

: 6

. .. 94

10-17.

.96, 137

: 15-22. . .

: 12....

... 239

13. . . .

. . . 240

: 19 flP

164

: 17-19.

... 96

18-35.

... 73

: 19 f

: 20

... 236

18-21.

... 150

:31f

239

: 21-49.

... 75

20f...

... 146

: 32

239

. . . 236

.74, 168

: 35

: 39. ...

... 146

32....

... 96

: 39

: 42. ...

... 146

Chaps

-18. ..

... 59

: 40

239

Chap.

... 239

Chap.

... 149

: 44. . .

162

7 : 1-10. .

... 136

14:

1-6.. .

96, 137

: 50

: 1-8. . .

... 75

If....

.. 58

: 11-17.

.96,137

.. 96

94, 96, 97,

137

.96, 130

7-11..

. . 150

: 66

160

: 16....

. . . 240

13....

.. 236

: 67. . .

160

. . . 135

;

15-24

.. 150

: 69

161

: 20-23.

... 135

21....

. . . 237

: 70

160

.96,136

;

22. . . .

... 236

Chap.

23 : 2

196

:22

... 146

146

136,

236, 237

27....

... 146

: 32-54. . . .

164

: 24. ...

... 146

28-32.

. . . 150

:34

239

: 36 f . . .

... 58

28-30

... 150

: 46

239

: 37. ...

. . . 236

31-33.

. . . 150

: 50

236

: 40-43.

... 150

Chap.

: 53

155

... 236

8, 149,

150, 235

: 54

169

Chap.

8 : 1-3. . .

. . . 237

15:

If....

148, 235

Chap.

234

... 236

8-10..

... 150

24: 1

169

... 75

11-32

169

: 4-15. .

... 146

146, 150

: 10

: 5-15. .

... 147

15....

. . . 186

: 13

: 9.. 142

144,145

Chap.

16.

148, 150

:26

: 10. ...

... 144

16:

1-13..

148, 150

33, 161,

164

... 58

: 38-43 ....

162

. . . 145

146,

148, 231

: 22-25.

... 140

146

: 45

241

: 27. ...

... 94

14....

... 148

: 46-49. . . .

164

: 28. ...

... 159

;

19-31

:46 33,

161

:33f...

... 139

97,

150, 237

: 52

164

: 35. ...

.94, 139

19...

. 150

: 53

240

. . . 139

: 20. 187 f., 236

:43

10, 92 f .

21....

... 98

JOHN

: 55

. .. 94

23....

... 236

Chap.

1:1

112

Chap.

9:2

... 95

Chap.

17:

... 188

: 14.... 106,

112

: 10-17.

. . . 140

7-10. .

... 150

: 18

112

14 f . . .

... 68

11-19

:33

158

: 18..

.60,239

96, 97. 137

: 34.... 112,

158

: 20-27.

... 164

11....

. 74, 168

: 49

112

:20

15....

. . . 240

Chap.

2:9

134

33,

158, 160

20 f . . .

... 149

Chap.

223

: 22

164, 169

Chap.

... 150

4: 16 ff

134

: 23 f . . .

... 146

18:

1-8. . .

150, 239

Chap.

5:8

134

... 160

9-14..

. . . 150

: 17

137

: 38 f . . .

... 94

. . . 150

: 18 115,

158

: 38. ...

. . . 239

11-13.

. . . 240

: 19 f

160

:43f...

. . . 164

15....

... 239

: 19

159

: 51-12

59 73

.95, 146

: 24

159

.74,168

43. ...

... 240

Chap.

6:2

134

Chap.

... 234

Chap.

19:

2-10. .

. . . 236

: 8 f

239

10 : 9

. . . 95

... 236

ij f

134

, .. 95

;

... 186

: 19

134

INDEX OF QUOTATIONS

255

John Continued

Chap. 5 : 15 100

Chap. 13 : 4 182, 206

Chap. 7 : 2 fl 168

: 16 98

: 5 48

:2 14

: 17 f 200

: 8 182

:41f 120

: 18 200

:11 100

: 42 120

:29-32.... 221

: 12 182

Chap. 8: 19 115

: 33-42 200

: 13 182

:48 117

: 33 200

: 14 183

Chap. 9 : 6 f 134

:36f.

: 16-41 228

Chap. 10 : 6 145

32, 169, 171

: 45 192

: 25 115

:37

: 46 224

Chap. 11: 17 f 168
: 17 74

122, 123, 126, 127
Chaps. 6 and 7 84

:50 192
Chap. 14 : 3 193

: 44 134

Chap. 6:5 22,222

:5 193

Chap. 12:1 74,168

: 9 222

:6 183

: 20 21

: 11-14.... 200

: 8-18. . 187, 193

: 34 162

Chap. 7:2-53 222

:8 100

Chap. 16 : 25 145

: 16 187

:11 183

: 29 145

:51 224

: 12-17. ... 228

Chap. 18 : 10 94

:53 222

: 19 22, 193

:31 200

:56 222

: 20 194

Chap. 19 : 12 196

: 58 20

:21 22

: 15 196

:59 222

: 23 23

Chaps. 20 and 21 ... 134
Chap. 20: 1 169
: 30 f 156

Chap. 8 84
8:1 .84,222
: 3 200

: 26 22
Chap. 15:81,82,172,173
15 : 1-30 82

:31 42

: 5-40 87

:2-29 171 f.

Chap. 21 : 1-14 140

: 7 85

: 4 224

: 6. . . .134

Chaps. 9-28 83

:7-ll 221

: 24 134

Chap. 9 229

: 13-21.... 224

9: 1-30.... 81-84

: 18 f 225

ACTS

: 1 f 200

: 22 f 224

Chaps 1-15

: 18 94,100

: 22 22

18, 37, 77, 84, 86 flf.

: 26-30 171

: 23-29 224

Chaps. 1-14 83

: 31-13 : 13 84

: 23 22

Chaps. 1-12

:33 100

: 24 224

76f.,84, 85, 87, 222

:36 86

: 25. . . . 224

Chaps. 1-5 57, 84, 85, 86

Chap. 10 223

: 30 22

Chap. 1 85

10 : 1 f 193

:35 22

1:1 1,4,5,31,

: 10 100

:41 182

36, 37, 48,

: 11 214

Chaps. 16-28. . . .37, 187

164, 235

: 28-29.... 221

Chap. 16 228

: 3 99

: 34-43 221

16:6 182, 183

: 4 99

: 36-43. ... 48

:7 182

: 11-15 : 35 89

:47 221

: 9-40 178

: 14 84

Chaps. Hand 12... 174

: 9 f 23

: 15-22. ... 220

Chap. 11:4-17 221

: 10-40 7

19 . 86

: 4 53

:10..27, 75, 182

: 64 240

:5 100

:11.. ..182,206

Chap. 2 85

: 19-27 22

: 12 183

2 : 1-13 86

: 25 f 26

: 13 27

: 9 ... 182

: 27-30

: 17..27.135.199

: 10 182

81, 174, 175

:18 135

: 11 182

:27 31

: 19 192

: 14-39 .... 220

:28.. .25,26,83

: 20 192

: 22 134

: 29 f 171 f.

: 21-23

: 28 240

: 30 175

185, 192

: 47 240

Chap. 12 : 1-23 175

: 22 192

Chaps. 3-5 85,87
Chap. 3 : 7 f 99

: 1 f 181
: 2 174, 200

: 26-34 135
:35f 192

8f . 240

: 3 fl 181

:37 186

12-26 . 221

: 12 49

: 38 179

: 12 . . 85

:13-17.... 200

Chaps. 17-19 81

: 16 88

:17 174

Chap. 17 24

Chaps. 4 and 5 236
Chap. 4 : 1 f 200

: 20-23
174, 181

17:4 195
: 5 195

:8-12... . 221

: 23 99

: 6 195

:19 221

: 25-31.... 181

:7 196

35 . 93

:25

: 9. . . .196

: 36 182

171, 174, 175

: 10 197

: 38 f 93

Chaps. 13-28 76,85

: 11 2

Chap. 5 : 3-4 221
:5 99

Chaps. 13 and 14 ... 81
Chap. 13 174

: 14. ... 197, 206
:18 197

6 99

13: 1

: 19 f 197

9 . .221

17, 18, 22, 75,

: 22-31.... 226

-.10 99

80,83

:28 157

256

INDEX OF QUOTATIONS

ActsContinued
Chap. 17 : 32-34 197

Chap. 24 : 1-9 202
: 1 181,190

Chap. 28 : 9 f. 10, 27, 135
11.. . .207,215

: 34 188

:2-28 230

14. 228

:63 120
Chap. 18: 1 f.. . .175, 176

:3 5
: 10-21. ... 202

16 177, 228
17-28 228

: 2 175

: 14 194

30-31 30

: 6 224

: 22 202

:8 194
: 12 fl 175

:24f 203
:26 203,228

ROMANS

: 12 182

:27

Chap. 1 . . . 229

:13 194

176 f., 181,203

l:3f 113

: 14 f 195

Chap. 25 : 1-5 203

: 14 19

: 17 195

: 9 203

Chap. 2 229

: 18 f. 225

: 10-12 203

Chap. 3 62

: 18 206

: 11 186

Chap. 8 227

: 21 f 206

:12 186

Chaps. 9-11 194, 223

:22 22, 171

: 13-27 204

Chap. 9: 11 156

: 23.... 182, 183
Chap. 19 : 2-16 81

: 14-22. ... 230
: 19 60

Chap. 13: 1.. . . 191
Chap. 14 : 5 47

:10 182

: 24-27 230

Chap. 15 : 18 f. . . . 134

: 11 98

: 27 186

Chap. 16:7-21 18

:21 78, 182

Chap. 26 229

:21 18

: 24-27 199

26 : 1-23 204

: 26 f 199
:26 182

: 10 f 200
: 10

I CORINTHIANS

:27 120

84, 200, 222

Chap. 1 : 17. . . . 226

: 29 81

: 24-32 204

: 26-31.... 237

:31 198

: 25 5

Chap. 2:4 226

:33 198

: 32 186

Chap. 9:1 134

: 34 188
: 35 198

Chap. 27 58,206ff.
27 : 1 210

Chap. 11:23-25.... 74
Chap. 12 : 1-3 205

: 37 199

: 2.. . 12 81

: 9 f 134

:38 188,198

: 3 210

-.28-30.... 134

: 39 198
Chap. 20: 1 199,206

:4 212,214
: 5 182

Chap. 13 227
Chap. 14 : 22 134

:4 81

Chap. 15 227

: 5-28 : 31 . 78

182, 212, 214

15:8 134

:5fl 178

: 9 f. 210

:5 27

:9 210

II CORINTHIANS

: 6-28 : 31 . 7
: 6 206
: 9-12. . 101, 135
: 13-20 : 14 206

:10 215
:11.. .210,214
:12.. .210,213
:13.. .210,213

Chap. 2 : 17 fl. . . . 144
Chap. 5:21 117
Chap. 8:9 163

: 15, , . . 228
: 18-35 226
: 25 35
Chap. 21 : 1-10 101
:8f 49
:8 84
: 15 180
: 16 49
: 27-23: 30 171
: 17 f 228

: 14 f. 213
:14.. .209,213
: 15-17.... 213
:15
213,214,215
: 16 212,214
: 17.... 214, 215
:20 211
: 21-26.... 211
:21.., . 182

12,13,21,22,23
:23 28,224
: 25 28
Chap. 10 : 10 226
Chap. ll:24f 200
: 25 206
: 26 206
Chap. 12 : 12 134
: 18 13,21

: 18. . 49, 75 84

:21 55

209, 213, 214

GALATIANS

: 25 225
: 27-31.... 200

:28 209
: 29 215

Chap. 1 : 16 134
: 18 171 f

: 33-36 201

: 30-32.... 211

Chap. 2 82

: 38 201
: 39-22 : 23 201

: 30.... 214, 215
:32 215

2: 1-10.82, 171 f.
: 1 171

: 39 185
Chap. 22 229
22: 1-21 228

: 33-36.... 211
: 37 207
:38 215

:3 21
Chap. 3 156,194
3:5 134

: 2 69

:40

: 15 . . . 191

: 4 f 200

206, 212, 214, 215

: 17 224

: 4 200

:41

: 19. . . . 222

: 17 100
: 24-29 201

209, 213/214

:4* 211

: 23-25.... 191
28 238

:28 20,185

Chap. 28 : 1-10 211

Chap. 4 191

: 30 201
Chap. 23 : 1-10 201

:2 18

:4 is

4:2 191
:4... . 113

: 1 185

:s 135

: 13.. .13,23,27

: 26-30 201
: 27-30 230

:6 9

:7 187

: 21-31.... 191
: 24 147

:35 202

:8 10,135

Chap. 6:5 215

INDEX OF QUOTATIONS

257

PHILIPPIANS

Chap. 1:27 186

Chap. 2:5-11 163

: 20 82

Chap. 3 227

3:20 186

COLOSSIANS

Chap. l:16f 137

chap - 4 ;i8-f 14 :::: it

: 10

12, 39, 67, 81
: 12-14.... 18

: 12 47

: 14
12,13,16,28,39,90

II THESSALONIANS

Chap. 2 : 3 f 196 f.

Chap. 3:10.! . . . . . 196

I TIMOTHY
Chap. 2:2

II TlMOTHI

.. 191

JAMES

Chap. 1:5
Chap. 3:4
: 10-18....

225
214
225

Chap. 1:15-17..

Chap. 4:5

.. 47

I PETEB

14 16

17. . . .

Chap. 2:12...

* 21

:22

117

Chap. 4 : 16

205

TITUS

Chap. 3:13

.. 190

II PETER

PHILEMON

Chap. 1:1

224

V. 23 f

.. 18

: 16

24 12, 13,
67, 74,

16, 28,
81

I JOHN

HEBREWS

Chap. 3:5

117

Chap. 4 : 15
Chap. 6 : 19
Chap. 7:25

117

215
, .. 96

REVELATION
Chap. 18

207

Chap. 9 : 16 f . . . .

, . . 191

18: 17

20V

Chap. 13:13

. .. 205

Chap. 21:1

207

GENESIS

Chap. 1 : 13 187

Chap. 23 : 16 187

Chap. 33 : 19 187

EXODUS
Chap. 40:38 156

LEVITICUS
Chap. 13 : 12 93

II SAMUEL
Chap. 7:5-17 156

II CHRONICLES

Chap. 21:12 225

Chap. 30:1 225

Chap. 32 : 17 225

PSALMS

2:7 158

89 156

90:1 157

B. OLD TESTAMENT

ECCLESIASTES

Chap. 2:20 50

ISAIAH

Chap. 7:14 105

Chap. 40: If 95

Chap. 43 : 6 91

Chap. 58:6 159

Chap. 61 : 1 f 159

JEREMIAH

Chap. 29: 1 225

:25 225

LAMENTATIONS
Chap. 4:20 157 f.

EZEKIBL

Chap. 21 : 7 99

DANIEL

Chap. 7 : 13 f 163

:13 161

Chap. 9:27 33

MlCAH

Chap. 5:2 120

APOCRYPHA

WISDOM

Chap. 4 : 13 f 223

Chap. 5:11 99

SlRACH

Chap. 6:35 49

Chap. 51 : 10 157

II MACCABEES

Chap. 2:32 49

IV MACCABEES

Chap. 4:11 97

PSALMS OF SOLOMON
Chap. 17:36...^... 157

B. U.

No. 113,11 157

1079, 24 f 202

1179,20 196

P. FAT.

No. II, 9 f. 88

P. OXT.

No. 119,10 196

254 122

C. PAPYRI

No. 256 122

294,23 196

375 157

939,25 96

1154,8 153

PAP. BEROL.
No. 7006 157

P. PAR.

No. 47,23ff 96

47,27 100

P. HEID.
No. 6...

186

P. LOND.

No. 121 95

442 95

971,4 100

P. PETR.

No. 11,25 97

111,59 122

University of Toronto
Library

Acme Library Card Pocket

Under Pat. "Ref. Index,File"

Made by LIBRARY BUREAU

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Luke the historian in the light of research"

See other formats